Tilapia in Intensive Co-culture E-Book
151,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Serie: World Aquaculture Society Book Series
- Sprache: Englisch
Intensive tilapia co-culture is the commercial production of various species of tilapia in conjunction with one or more other marketable species. Tilapia are attractive as a co-cultured fish because of their potential to improve water quality, especially in penaeid shrimp ponds, by consuming plankton and detritus and by altering pathogenic bacterial populations while increasing marketable production.
Following introductory chapters covering ecological aspects of co-culture, tilapia feeding habits, historical use, and new models, Tilapia in Intensive Co-Culture is divided into co-culture in freshwater and marine environments. Co-culture core information is presented on Vibrio control, high-rate aquaculture processes, aquaponics, tilapia nutrient profile, and tilapia niche economics and marketing in the U.S, and with carp, catfish, freshwater and marine shrimp in the Americas, the Middle East, and Asia.
Tilapia in Intensive Co-Culture is the latest book in the prestigious World Aquaculture Society (WAS) Series, published for WAS by Wiley Blackwell. It will be of great use and interest to researchers, producers, investors and policy makers considering tilapia co-culture in terms of environmental and economic sustainability.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 740
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
List of Contributors
Foreword
Efficiency in Aquaculture
References
Preface
References
Chapter 1: Ecological Basis of Tilapia Co-culture Systems
Introduction
Aquaculture Production: Ecology in Tilapia Co-culture Systems
Environmental Control: Tilapia Co-culture as a Management Tool
Tilapia Recruitment Control: Tilapia Co-culture with a Predator
1
Concluding Remarks
References
Chapter 2: Tilapia Feeding Habits and Environmental Tolerances
Introduction
Feeding Habits
Environmental Tolerances
References
Chapter 3: Historical Use of Tilapia in Intensive Co-culture
Introduction
Tilapia Culture Failures
Tilapia Culture Successes
Conclusion
References
Chapter 4: New Models and Rationales
Old Co-culture Models
Co-culture of Tilapia in the United States Using Geothermal Water
New Co-culture Models
Rationales for Co-culture
Limitations
References
Chapter 5: Sustainability Needs and Challenges: Marine Systems
Introduction
Constraints to Open Ocean Aquaculture
Tilapia Co-culture Potential in the Open Ocean
Tilapia Co-culture in Coastal Areas
Issues Regarding Genetically Modified Tilapia
Reduction of Fishmeal and Fish Oil in Prepared Feeds
References
Chapter 6: Luminous Vibrio and the Greenwater Culture of the Tiger Shrimp Penaeus monodon with Tilapia
Introduction
Luminous Vibriosis
Greenwater Culture
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 7: Tilapia–Shrimp Polyculture
Introduction
Replicated Field Studies
Conclusion
References
Chapter 8: Sustainability Needs and Challenges: Freshwater Systems
Introduction
Needs
Challenges
References
Chapter 9: Pond Co-culture with Catfish Research in the Americas, with Emphasis on Cage-Confined Tilapia
Introduction
Co-culture Research with South American Catfish
References
Chapter 10: Tilapia Co-culture in Cages and In-pond Raceways
Introduction
Cages
In-pond Raceways
References
Chapter 11: Tilapia–Macrobrachium Polyculture
Introduction
Prawn–Tilapia Interactions
Four Decades of Tilapia–
Macrobrachium
Research
Commercial Prawn–Tilapia Polyculture
Summary and Conclusion
Acknowledgments
References
Chapter 12: Tilapia in High-Rate Aquaculture Processes
Expanding Role of Aquaculture
The Partitioned Aquaculture System: Green-Water for Catfish Production
The Controlled Eutrophication Process: Green-Water for Environmental Remediation
Zero-Discharge Seafood Production: Green- and Brown-Water Shrimp Production
Tilapia-Stabilized Microalgal Culture for Live Food Production
Summary
Future Research
References
Chapter 13: Tilapia Co-culture in Egypt
Introduction
Tilapia Culture in Egypt
Semi-Intensive Culture of Tilapia in Earthen Ponds
Environmental Impacts of Tilapia Culture
Tilapia Feed and Feeding
Tilapia Stress and Disease
References
Chapter 14: Tilapia Co-culture in Israeli Fishponds and Reservoirs
Introduction
Growout Ponds and Reservoirs
Tilapia Co-cultures for Production Purposes
Tilapia Co-culture with Predators to Control Tilapia Recruitment
Concluding Remarks
References
Chapter 15: Aquaponics
Introduction
Aquaponics Designs
Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA)
Fish and Plant Crop Choices
Co-Culture of Aquatic Species
Future Applications
References
Chapter 16: Nutrient Profiles of Tilapia
Fish as a Source of Nutrients in the Human Diet
Tilapia Consumption
Nutrient Composition of Tilapia and Influential Factors
Conclusion
References
Chapter 17: The Economics of Small-Scale Tilapia Aquaculture in the United States
Introduction
Economics of Small-Scale Cage Culture of Tilapia
Economics of Small-Scale Open Pond Culture of Tilapia
Economics of Small-Scale Tank and Aquaponics Culture of Tilapia
Small-Scale Marketing of Tilapia
Conclusion
References
Appendix 1: Field Key to the Commonly Cultured Tilapias, with Species Synopses
Field Key to the Commonly Cultured Tilapias
*
Species Synopses
Appendix 2: World Hybrid Tilapia Literature 1980–2014*
Introduction
References
Tilapia Bibliography
Scientific Names Index*
Topical Index
End User License Agreement
Pages
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xv
xvi
xvii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Foreword
Preface
Begin Reading
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1: Ecological Basis of Tilapia Co-culture Systems
Figure 1.1 Relationships among organisms and environment in the fishpond ecosystem. Gray arrows: flow from phytoplankton. Black arrows: flow to phytoplankton.
Figure 1.2 Synergistic mutual effects through the food web and environment between hybrid tilapia (
Oreochromis niloticus
×
O. aureus
) and the bottom feeder common carp (
Cyprinus carpio
).
Figure 1.3 Paddy–fish system in Bangladesh.
Figure 1.4 Rice–fish–environment relationships in the paddy–fish ecosystem.
Figure 1.5 Co-culture of Nile tilapia in hapas with freshwater prawn free on the pond bottom in a fish farm in Thailand.
Figure 1.6 Co-culture of Nile tilapia with freshwater prawn in periphyton-based ponds in the experimental fishponds of the Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU) at Mymensingh.
Figure 1.7 Tilapia–freshwater prawn relationships through the food web and the environment in periphyton-based ponds.
Figure 1.8 Fish–environment relationships involved in tilapia recruitment control by a predator fish. The predators represented are African snakehead
Parachanna obscura
, red drum
Sciaenops ocellatus
, and African catfish
Clarias gariepinus
.
Chapter 2: Tilapia Feeding Habits and Environmental Tolerances
Figure 2.1 A group of growing-finishing hogs in a pen suspended over a tilapia pond. Swine waste fertilized the pond to provide plankton blooms for the tilapia.
Figure 2.2 Red tilapia feeding actively in an aquaculture facility in Idaho, USA that supplies water year round at about 30 °C. Winter air temperatures can fall to −34 °C.
Figure 2.3 Red hybrid tilapia being fed in a saltwater growout pond at a research facility in the Bahamas.
Figure 2.4 Red tilapia fry in the hatching jar in the Bahamas will be moved to freshwater tanks for a period of time before being stocked in saltwater growout ponds.
Figure 2.5 A paddlewheel aerator in a fish production pond.
Chapter 3: Historical Use of Tilapia in Intensive Co-culture
Figure 3.1 An aesthetically pleasing depiction of tilapia, circa 2000 bc, Egypt.
Chapter 4: New Models and Rationales
Figure 4.1 Concrete ponds at the Barrage Station, a research facility near Cairo, Egypt.
Figure 4.2 Concrete raceways and laboratory building at the Barrage Station.
Figure 4.3 A net pen in Lake Quarun, Egypt.
Figure 4.4 A tilapia tank farm about 65km from Boise, Idaho, operates year round even though winter air temperatures can fall to less than −30 °C. Geothermal water maintains a constant optimum temperature in the tilapia tanks.
Figure 4.5 The Snake River canyon near Twin Falls, Idaho. Water gushes from the canyon wall and is diverted to commercial trout farms (one of which can be seen on the far side of the river near the right side of the photo). Geothermal water is also readily available in the area.
Figure 4.6 A pair of raceway series at Leo Ray's farm above the Snake River in Idaho. The upper raceways are used for channel catfish production, with the last raceway in each series dedicated to tilapia. Demand feeders can be seen near one side of each raceway.
Figure 4.8 Alligators at the Ray farm can survive year round in Idaho by being provided with geothermal water.
Figure 4.9 Alligator hides produced on the Ray farm.
Figure 4.10 The production of animals produces residues (nutrients, biogas, and water), commonly discharged as wastes, but which have value as input resources for production of plants.
Figure 4.11 Colorado Gators and Colorado Aquaculture are two interrelated businesses that exhibit the traits of a SEED Park, a Sustainable Environmental and Economic Development Park.
Figure 4.12 An albino Colorado alligator.
Chapter 6: Luminous Vibrio and the Greenwater Culture of the Tiger Shrimp Penaeus monodon with Tilapia
Figure 6.1 Luminous colonies of
Vibrio harveyi
cultured in nutrient agar and photographed in the dark.
Figure 6.2 Mixed cultures of microalgae and their effect on
Vibrio harveyi
.
Chapter 7: Tilapia–Shrimp Polyculture
Plate 7.1 Polyculture pond in Surat Thani, Thailand with tilapia in hapas in center of pond.
Figure 7.1 Hybrid strain of Jewel tilapia reared in brackish water with
Penaeus monodon
.
Figure 7.2 Polyculture calendar in Sumatra, Indonesia
.
Figure 7.3 Cages of tilapia and barramundi in shrimp pond in Vung Tau, Vietnam.
Chapter 8: Sustainability Needs and Challenges: Freshwater Systems
Plates 8.1 Low head pumping system utilizing air lift technology.
Figure 8.2 Pescaltor using energy-efficient Archimedes screw for moving fish.
Chapter 9: Pond Co-culture with Catfish Research in the Americas, with Emphasis on Cage-Confined Tilapia
Figure 9.1 Two of four tilapia cages in UAPB 0.045-ha channel catfish experimental ponds.
Plate 9.1 Tilapia net pens in Joe Hogan State Hatchery 1 ha blue catfish fingerling pond.
Plate 9.2 Unfed blue tilapia harvested from a UAPB 0.045 ha channel catfish experimental pond.
Figure 9.3 UAPB plankton mesocosm facility.
Plate 9.4 Golden strain channel catfish spawned at UAPB, with the normal coloration above.
Plate 9.5 Commercial-sized hassar (
Haplosternum littorale
) from Guyana.
Chapter 10: Tilapia Co-culture in Cages and In-pond Raceways
Figure 10.1 In-pond raceway diagram.
Figure 10.2 Mean catfish growth grams per day over the 6 years of in-pond raceway research on catfish production at the Auburn University Fisheries Research Unit.
Figure 10.3 Net yield of catfish over the 6 years of in-pond raceway research on catfish production at the Auburn University Fisheries Research Unit.
Figure 10.4 Catfish and tilapia harvest from in-pond raceway (1994). Netting had to be placed over the raceway to prevent tilapia from jumping out.
Plate 10.1 Commercial in-pond raceway system in Dallas County Alabama.
Chapter 11: Tilapia–Macrobrachium Polyculture
Figure 11.1 Feeding relationships between prawns and tilapia in polyculture.
Chapter 12: Tilapia in High-Rate Aquaculture Processes
Figure 12.1 Clemson University 0.8 ha PAS for catfish culture in 2008 and system schematic.
Figure 12.2 Late season reduction in cyanobacteria dominance in PAS units with expanding tilapia populations.
Figure 12.3 Average algal cell age in PAS units with and without tilapia stockings.
Figure 12.4 PAS typical net tilapia biomass as percentage of catfish carrying capacity.
Plate 12.1 Green algal dominance using tilapia filtration (
Oreochromis niloticus,
left tank) as opposed to cyanobacterial dominance using freshwater mussel filtration (right tank).
Figure 12.5 Tilapia cages over belts to remove tilapia fecal production.
Figure 12.6 Algal biomass harvested as tilapia fecal pellets deposited onto belts.
Figure 12.7 PAS catfish and tilapia production and carrying capacity at Clemson from 1995 to 2001.
Figure 12.8 Algal harvest belts in Controlled Eutrophication Units in California.
Figure 12.9 Tilapia (
Oreochromis mossambicus
) holding cells over algal harvesting belts in California.
Figure 12.10 Greenhouse-covered marine shrimp culture facility at Clemson University.
Figure 12.11 Paddlewheel-driven green-water in marine shrimp culture facility.
Figure 12.12 Fraction of aquaculture feed nitrogen converted to seafood products versus fraction discharged as waste. Schwartz and Brune 2016.
Plate 12.2 Overview of the Controlled Eutrophication Processes for nutrient recovery from surface waters.
Plate 12.3 Algal biomass/fecal waste ranging from 5 to 10% solids exiting CEP units.
Plate 12.4 Solar drying of CEP algal solids in California to 15% moisture.
Plate 12.5 Nine-day rotation cycle for tilapia cohorts held in CEP polishing units.
Figure 12.13 Greenhouse-covered, zero-discharge, “green-water” aquaculture system at University of Missouri Bradford Farms operating in 2012.
Figure 12.14 University of Missouri zero-discharge shrimp culture with tilapia co-culture for solids control.
Plate 12.6 Low levels of algal biomass from tilapia polishing cells versus inlet algal concentration.
Figure 12.15 30.5-cm-diameter net pen used to hold tilapia in 1,400l algal cultures.
Plate 12.16 Solids levels observed in Clemson University marine shrimp culture units, (i) tilapia unit, (ii) shrimp unit connected to tilapia unit, (iii) shrimp unit without tilapia filtration.
Figure 12.16 Tilapia fecal production recovered from 1400l algal reactor.
Plate 12.8 Tilapia and brine shrimp bioprocessing of algal solids supporting water quality control in zero-discharge shrimp culture at University of Missouri in 2013.
Plates 12.9 Tilapia and brine shrimp bioprocessing of microbial solids supporting water quality control in zero-discharge shrimp culture at University of Missouri in 2013.
Figure 12.11 Previously infected algal culture cleared of algal cells and ciliate population using tilapia filtration (left) and 8 days of tilapia-stabilized
Chaetoceros
culture (right).
Chapter 13: Tilapia Co-culture in Egypt
Figure 13.1 Fish production in Egypt, 1950–2012.
Figure 13.2 Production of major farmed fish species in Egypt during 1990–2012.
Figure 13.3 Aquaculture production (mt and percent) by farming systems in Egypt in 2012.
Plate 13.1 Central garden pool in the Garden of Nebamun's Tomb Painting, British Museum, late 18th Dynasty, circa 1350 bce (photo in the public domain).
Figure 13.4 Semi-intensive tilapia culture pond.
Figure 13.5 Poultry manure piled on the pond dyke in Hamool, Kafr El-Shaikh.
Plate 13.2 Manual feeding of tilapia ponds in Behaira (a). Demand feeding of tilapia in a pond in Kafr El-Shaikh (b).
Figure 13.6 Production of cage culture in Egypt, 2003–2012.
Plate 13.3 Arrays of tilapia cages in the Rosetta branch of the Nile River.
Plate 13.4 Rectangular (a) and round (b) intensive tilapia culture tanks in Sharkia governorate.
Figure 13.7 Raising tilapia in rice field in Sharkia governorate.
Figure 13.8 Harvesting wheat crop (a) and wheat straw (b) in tilapia pond in Sharkia governorate.
Plate 13.5 A pepper, eggplant, and okra field irrigated from a tilapia pond.
Figure 13.9 A street vendor selling tilapia and mullets (a) and grilling tilapia in a vegetable and fish market in Alexandria (b).
Figure 13.10 Exophthalmia (Popeye) (a) and skin hemorrhage (b) in Nile tilapia caused by bacterial infection.
Chapter 14: Tilapia Co-culture in Israeli Fishponds and Reservoirs
Figure 14.1 Tilapia hybrid cultured in Israel (
Oreochromis niloticus
×
O. aureus
).
Figure 14.2 Group of fish ponds.
Plate 14.1 Dual-purpose reservoir for fish culture and irrigation in Israel. Feeding silos on the side of the bank road, groups of four columns to lift nets and floating feeders in the water in front of the silos, and paddlewheel aerators in the foreground.
Figure 14.3 Country marketed fish and total pond area from the beginning of the aquaculture activity in Israel.
Chapter 15: Aquaponics
Plate 15.1 Rebecca Nelson with tilapia and vegetables grown in Clear Flow Aquaponic Systems®.
Plate 15.2 Commercial aquaponics system holds 37,850l of water and sits in a 557m
2
greenhouse. It produces approximately 50,000 heads of lettuce and 2,268kg of fish per year.
Plate 15.3 This system, operated by a family of four in South Carolina, provides fresh fish and a variety of vegetables to feed the family.
Plate 15.4 Lettuce grown on rafts in a commercial aquaponics system.
Plate 15.5 Variety of vegetables grown on living filter media beds in Clear Flow Aquaponics Systems® with ZDEP®.
Chapter 17: The Economics of Small-Scale Tilapia Aquaculture in the United States
Plate 17.1 Schematics of a small-scale outdoor tilapia aquaponics system. Blue arrows indicate water flow.
List of Tables
Chapter 1: Ecological Basis of Tilapia Co-culture Systems
Table 1.1 Species stocked in tilapia–predator co-cultures
Table 1.2 Studies on Nile tilapia recruitment control by predator fishes
Chapter 2: Tilapia Feeding Habits and Environmental Tolerances
Table 2.1 Feeding habits of the most commonly cultured species of tilapia
a
Chapter 6: Luminous Vibrio and the Greenwater Culture of the Tiger Shrimp Penaeus monodon with Tilapia
Table 6.1 Detection of luminous
Vibrio
on the skin mucus of different fish species and reduction of
V. harveyi
from 10
3
and 10
5
CFU/ml after exposure to skin mucus of the same fish species (Lio-Po
et al
. 2005a)
Chapter 7: Tilapia–Shrimp Polyculture
Table 7.1 Tilapia–shrimp polyculture: methods, environmental changes, and impacts on pathogens
Chapter 9: Pond Co-culture with Catfish Research in the Americas, with Emphasis on Cage-Confined Tilapia
Table 9.1 Means of critical parameters in monoculture compared with co-culture of net-pen-confined Nile tilapia and blue catfish fingerlings in 1-ha ponds
Table 9.2 Comparison of 0.4-ha pond trials of Nile and blue tilapia cage-confined co-culture with channel catfish with catfish monoculture
Table 9.3 Comparisons of filtering efficiency in percentage change from initial after 48 h by seven filter-feeding fishes in mesocosms in natural units of common off-flavor algae, with impacts on total biomass as chlorophyll and pheophytin
a
Table 9.4 Monoculture and tilapia cage-confined co-culture summarized: 1993–1995 UAPB catfish co-culture research experience
Chapter 10: Tilapia Co-culture in Cages and In-pond Raceways
Table 10.1 Mean
catfish
survival, growth rate, production, and percentage markeTable fish for four treatments of tilapia/catfish polyculture in cages in 1993
Table 10.2 Mean
tilapia
survival, growth rate, overall food conversion ratio, and percentage of markeTable fish for four treatments of tilapia/catfish co-culture in cages in 1993
Chapter 11: Tilapia–Macrobrachium Polyculture
Table 11.1 Farmed prawn output (mt) in 2013 in the top 12 producing countries (FAO 2015)
Table 11.2 Top 12 producing countries (by volume) of all species of farmed tilapias in 2013 (FAO 2015)
Chapter 12: Tilapia in High-Rate Aquaculture Processes
Table 12.1 Average catfish carrying capacity and yields versus tilapia yields in 0.135 ha PAS units at Clemson University from 1995 to 2000
Chapter 13: Tilapia Co-culture in Egypt
Table 13.1 Feed and fertilization strategies suggested for optimum yields of tilapia in semi-intensive systems in Egypt
Table 13.2 Cost-benefit analysis and average production costs and returns for tilapia culture in Egypt
Table 13.3 Feed conversion ratios of Nile tilapia-fed commercial feeds (25% CP)
Chapter 16: Nutrient Profiles of Tilapia
Table 16.1 Typical proximate composition of various tilapia species and effects of culture parameters
Table 16.2 Typical levels of EPA and DHA in the edible muscle tissue of selected farmed fish species and comparison with that of the edible part of selected livestock
Table 16.3 Selected fatty acid compositions of the muscle/fillet of tilapias
Table 16.4 Selected amino acid contents (g/100 g tissue) of Nile tilapia (
O
.
niloticus
)
Table 16.5 Characteristic vitamin contents (per 100 g tissue) in tilapias
Table 16.6 Characteristic contents (per 100 g tissue) of the major minerals in tilapias
Chapter 17: The Economics of Small-Scale Tilapia Aquaculture in the United States
Table 17.1 Costs of tilapia cage culture in a single 0.4 ha pond
Table 17.2 Costs of tilapia cage culture and freshwater prawn polyculture system in a single 0.4 ha pond
Table 17.3 Costs of tilapia open pond culture in a single 0.4 ha pond
Table 17.4 Costs of a tilapia tank and lettuce aquaponics system using a single 38 m
3
(10,000 gallon) fish tank
Tilapia in Intensive Co-culture
Edited by
Peter W. Perschbacher (retired)
Aquaculture/Fisheries DepartmentUniversity of Arkansas at Pine BluffPine Bluff, AR, United States
and
Robert R. Stickney (retired)
Department of Oceanography Texas A&M University College Station, TX, United States
This edition first published 2017 © 2017 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Registered office: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial offices: 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.
The right of Peter W. Perschbacher and Robert R. Stickney to be identified as the editors of Tilapia in Intensive Co-culture has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author(s) have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services and neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Perschbacher, Peter W., editor. | Stickney, Robert R., editor.
Title: Tilapia in intensive co-culture / edited by Peter W. Perschbacher and Robert R. Stickney.
Description: Chichester, UK ; Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, 2017. | Includes index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2016032590 | ISBN 9781118970669 (cloth)
Subjects: LCSH: Tilapia. | Integrated aquaculture. | Integrated mariculture.
Classification: LCC SH167.T54 T595 2017 | DDC 639.3/774-dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016032590
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books.
We dedicate this book to Steve Serfling, pioneer and innovator in tilapia co-culture in intensive systems.
Steve Serfling at the World Aquaculture Society meeting in San Diego, CA, January 2002. Photograph by Bob Rosenberry.
List of Contributors
Robert W. Brick
(retired)
Division of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
Blinn College
Bryan Campus, TX, United States
Randall Brummett
Environment and Natural Resources Department
World Bank
Washington, DC, United States
David E. Brune
Food Systems and Bioengineering
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO, United States
Richard C. Bryant
Aquaculture Research Center
Kentucky State University
Frankfort, KY, United States
Siddhartha Dasgupta
Aquaculture Research Center
Kentucky State University
Frankfort, KY, United States
Abdel-Fattah M. El-Sayed
Oceanography Department, Faculty of Science
Alexandria University
Alexandria, Egypt
Kevin M. Fitzsimmons
Department of Soil, Water, and Environmental Science
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ, United States
Martha Hernández
Departamento de Recursos del Mar
Centro de Investigación y de Estudios Avanzados del IPN-CINVESTAV
Mérida, Spain
Ioannis T. Karapanagiotidis
Department of Ichthyology and Aquatic Environment, School of Agricultural Sciences
University of Thessaly
Thessaly, Greece
Gilda D. Lio-Po
(retired)
Fish Health Section, Aquaculture Department
Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center
Tigbauan, Iloilo, Philippines
Michael Masser
Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX, United States
Ana Milstein
Agricultural Research Organization-ARO
Fish and Aquaculture Research Station
Dor, M.P. Hof HaCarmel, Israel
Rebecca L. Nelson
Department of Biology
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
Stevens Point, WI, United States
and
Nelson and Pade, Inc.
Montello, WI, United States
Michael B. New
World Aquaculture Society and European Aquaculture Society
Marlow, Bucks, United Kingdom
Nick Parker
Texas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX, United States
Peter W. Perschbacher
(retired)
Aquaculture/Fisheries Department
University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff
Pine Bluff, AR, United States
Frank J. Schwartz
Institute of Marine Sciences
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Morehead City, NC, United States
Erfan Shahkar
Blue Aqua International (Thailand) Co. Ltd.
Bangkok, Thailand
Robert R. Stickney
(retired)
Department of Oceanography
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX, United States
Wagner C. Valenti
Biosciences Institute
Sāo Paulo State University
UNESP, Coastal Campus, Sāo Vincente, Brazil
Foreword
Randall Brummett
Efficiency in Aquaculture
Improving the efficiency of the food production system to accommodate predicted increases in the human population, while protecting as much natural space and biodiversity as possible, has been the focus of much discussion in conservation and development circles. In an analysis of global food security in the context of the Anthropocene Epoch (Crutzen and Stoermer 2000), the UK Office of Science has proposed “Sustainable Intensification,” using less land and water to produce more food, another way of describing efficiency as the best way forward in reconciling the needs of people and biodiversity (Foresight 2011).
There are three components of efficiency as it relates to food production, in general, and aquaculture, in particular:
Ecological efficiency
Technical (or economic) efficiency
Administrative efficiency (aka political economics or policy).
Ecological Efficiency
Ecological efficiency is sustainable intensification. The logic derives from the “Sharing vs Sparing” debate in ecology (Egan and Mortensen 2012); the essential question is: do we conserve more land and water and protect more biodiversity through low-intensity or organic systems, which produce less per unit area but use less chemicals and soil-damaging cultivation practices associated with the Green Revolution? or do we heavily intensify our culture systems to generate more food with higher external inputs and thus leave aside more wild space for nature?
Small-scale organic farms generate products grown with minimal external inputs but use an average of about 25% more land per unit of output than the typical green revolution farm, and up to nearly 50% in developing countries (Seufert et al. 2012). In regions with declining but increasingly wealthy populations that appreciate a simplified diet based on seasonally available local produce, a gradual shift to low-intensity farming might be workable. However, choosing this path in places where increasing populations need cheap food just to survive (the vast majority of places on the earth) will necessitate substantial imports of food from regions with land to spare, most of which are in biodiverse tropical developing countries. Within limits, results from practical application of low intensity versus green revolution farming systems seem to lean in favor of sparing as the best approach to biodiversity conservation in the space reserved for food production (Kleijn et al. 2006; Phalan et al. 2011). Species that play a major role in local ecosystem function are often unwanted by farmers, both organic and green revolution, and so are removed, either by hand or herbicides. Even if removed by hand, habitat quality is determined not just by the lack of chemicals but also by genetic and structural diversity (e.g., old trees as nesting sites) both of which are dramatically reduced in virtually all farming systems, regardless of intensity.
As with ecosystems, generally, the optimum for biodiversity usually lies somewhere between the extremes of very low productivity and very high productivity (Fraser et al. 2015). A compromise approach that optimizes the use of chemicals, land, and water used in food production would probably lead to best long-term outcomes for the planet.
Technical Efficiency
Technical efficiency seeks to increase the profitability of production systems. To the extent that markets for environmental goods and services function properly, increasing the amount of output from the system per unit of input will drive improved profits.
Technical efficiency tends to improve over time as farmers work their way through the innumerable small problems that plague any new venture and is a major determinate of competitiveness in the marketplace. Often, and particularly in aquaculture, innovation is left entirely to the private sector with government extension services lagging far behind farmers in the state of the art. This leaves most of the new and more profitable ideas largely in the hands of the larger farms that can afford R&D programs and the implementation of new technology at scale.
One of the characteristics of aquaculture that make it interesting from a rural development perspective is that about 90% of producers are small scale. Aquaculture generates some 23 million jobs globally (FAO 2014) and represents a critical economy for parts of developing countries in Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Driving small-scale farmers out of business by allowing the market to become dominated by industrial-scale producers would be counterproductive to the global fight against poverty and food insecurity.
Administrative Efficiency
Administrative efficiency is the key to levelling the playing field for farmers to compete in a more sustainable global food production system. Managing multidimensional production systems that rely on cutting-edge technology is a business nightmare. Being a successful farmer using tried and true methods is already difficult. Add multiple cropping systems and innovative approaches that require local adaptation, and profitability generally plummets. This is the main reason why our food production systems remain dependent upon monocropping and the heavy use of pesticides and inorganic fertilizers. Subsidies, in the form of payment for ecosystem services (Kelsey Jack et al. 2008), are often required to help farmers through the often financially painful transition to more ecologically and technically efficient production systems.
Low-intensity farming systems compensate for their low returns to land by selling their produce at premium prices. This approach works economically in markets where prices are highly elastic and consumers have strong environmental sensitivities and the wherewithal to pay substantially more for their food. In reality, most consumers care little about the source of their food and could not afford to pay more even if they did care. Major seafood retailers report little to no margin for products marketed as sustainable (Coomes 2014) and 2.2 billion, over 30% of the world's population lives on less than US$2.00 a day (World Bank 2015).
The integrated production systems described in this book are the engines of ecological and technical efficiency in aquaculture. By stocking a range of species that can more fully exploit the entire aquaculture ecosystem, organic waste can be recycled into sellable products. Reducing the need for chemicals by growing complimentary species that improve environmental quality and thus disease lowers the need for expensive medicines, aeration, and water renewal.
We should not have to face choices between food or nature and food or jobs. It is the responsibility of food security and conservation policy makers and development planners to develop efficient administrative and management mechanisms to transform ecologically and technically efficient technologies into environmentally friendly economic growth and food security.
References
Coomes, S. 2014. Fish fact or fiction? Seafood lovers tell researchers one thing, restaurateurs another.
Seafood Business
33
(2):18–22.
Crutzen, P.J. and E.F. Stoermer. 2000. The anthropocene.
Global Change Newsletter
41
:17–18.
Egan J.F. and D.A. Mortensen. 2012. A comparison of land-sharing and land-sparing strategies for plant richness conservation in agricultural landscapes.
Ecological Applications
22
:459–471.
FAO. 2014.
State of world fisheries and aquaculture
. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Foresight. 2011.
The future of food and farming final project report
. The Government Office for Science, London.
Fraser, L.H., J. Pither, A. Jentsch. M. Sternberg, M. Zobel,
et al
. 2015. Worldwide evidence of a unimodal relationship between productivity and plant species richness.
Science
349
:302–305.
Kelsey Jack, B., C. Kousky, and K.R.E. Sims. 2008. Designing payments for ecosystem services: Lessons from previous experience with incentive-based mechanisms.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
105
(28):9465–9470.
Kleijn D.,
et al
. 2006. Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries.
Ecology Letters
9
:243–254.
Phalan B., M. Onial, A. Balmford, and R.E. Green. 2011. Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared.
Science
333
:1289–1291.
Seufert V., N. Ramankutty, and J.A. Foley. 2012. Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture.
Nature
485
:229–234.
World Bank. 2015.
Poverty overview
.
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview
.
Preface
To begin with, we wish to recognize the 18 coauthors, who have so generously donated their time and expertise to this endeavor. It is our hope it will further sustainable aquaculture, improve the image of tilapia culture, and help sustain the environment on which we all depend.
Sustainable agriculture has been broadly defined in the 1990 US Farm Bill as a “system which, over the long term, enhances environmental quality and the resource base on which agriculture depends, makes the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrates where appropriate biological cycles and controls, provides for basic human food and fiber needs, is economically viable, and enhances the quality of life for farmers and the society as a whole.” The justification for this book was the conviction, supported by research and practice, that tilapia in co-culture contributes to sustainable aquaculture. Co-culture in our opinion indicates the addition of one or more species to an existing aquaculture system, as in tilapia added to penaeid shrimp ponds, whether freely swimming or in cages. Drs New and Valenti in their Chapter 11 consider polyculture several species stocked together and freely swimming and co-culture the confinement/separation of the co-cultured species within the system, as in tilapia in cages in prawn ponds. Co-culture is also a recent designation for polyculture and is used as such in this book by several authors.
Tilapia culture is an aquaculture avalanche at present, moving toward displacing one or more carp species as the top-cultured white-fleshed fish. Along with this phenomenon is the growing practice of intensive monoculture for tilapia and other cultured species in freshwater (the most valuable and scarce resource). Sustainable development requires another look at the benefit tilapia co-culture can add to monoculture systems to clean the environment and add high value production. We hope to highlight this aspect of tilapia as a premier extractive organism to responsibly further needed intensification and aquaculture production.
Tilapia culture, though ancient (perhaps first in Egypt and contemporary with Chinese polyculture) is a recent commercial development. It has undergone at least three epochs. The first period, in the early twentieth century, was the feed the world, and especially the poorest of the poor, with tilapia. Introduced around the world, failures were due to uncontrolled reproduction. However, many studies were showing it is one of the few fish that can utilize cyanobacteria and other natural aquatic food items efficiently.
The second epoch, beginning in the mid-twentieth century, resulted from research that led to approaches to produce sex-reversed and monosex offspring of hybrids and allowed commercial, intensive monoculture. The issue then was the lack of recognition by the consumers in the Western world.
The third epoch began in the early twenty-first century with the penetration of tilapia into the largest Western seafood market, the United States. What followed was a marketing and production explosion. Tilapia is truly and finally the “aquatic chicken.”
We focus on the three major species: Nile, blue, and Mozambique tilapia, along with red hybrids. They currently have well-established and efficient culture practices and markets. In the future, more native species will and should be employed in their native countries.
James Rakocy (2005), a recognized tilapia aquaponics researcher, indicated in the FAO Cultured Species Information Programme fact sheet for Nile tilapia that trends in tilapia culture will be pond polyculture, new strains/selective breeding, genetically male tilapia (GMT) breeding procedures, and intensive cost-effective recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS). One of the significant cost-savings benefits from tilapia co-culture in freshwater may be control of algal populations and consequential off-flavors. Hargreaves (2003) concluded that although the effect of filter-feeding fish on algal biomass is questionable, the positive effects on community structure by reducing large filamentous and colonial cyanobacteria are more definite.
Prokaryotes, including algae and cyanobacteria (which are photosynthetic bacteria), are thought to equal plants in comprising the major biomass of the world, given their higher reproduction rates (Hunter 2010). Larger amounts of nitrogenous and phosphorus compounds, including proteins, are contained in this group than higher plants. Tilapia, and in particular Nile tilapia, have the potential to convert these food sources into edible protein and lipids, having evolved on naturally occurring cyanobacteria in Africa. Tilapia and algae, including seaweeds and bacterial blue-greens (May 2014), are and will be increasingly important human food supplies. Other cultured species may also soon utilize algal proteins and lipids in prepared diets, replacing fish meal and fish oil (Perschbacher 2013).
We realize that the chapters in this book include a good deal of historical information and literature citations that are duplicative to some degree. For example, the appearance of tilapia in artwork discovered in Egyptian pyramids and development of China are mentioned by several of the authors. Other examples are methods developed to produce all-male tilapia and descriptions of the food habits of various tilapia species. We have not attempted to reduce duplications as we want each chapter to stand on its own.
We acknowledge our mentors in responsible, ecological aquaculture: John Bardach, Homer Buck, Claude Boyd, Kirk Strawn, Hugh Swingle, and many others, including colleagues Jim McVey, Bill Wurts, and Barry Costa-Pierce, who have had an influence on how we think about how aquaculture activities can benefit from as well as impact the environment and who have provided opinions on how those benefits can be optimized and impacts can be ameliorated. Our wives, Virginia Brady Perschbacher and Carolan Stickney, supported this “retirement” project and are appreciated beyond words. The staff of Wiley, Nigel Balmforth, Delia Sandford, and Kelvin Matthews, were true partners across the pond, and World Aquaculture Society publication heads present and former, Joe Tomasso and Wade Watanabe, were key to starting this project and were helpful and encouraging.
References
Hargreaves, J.A. 2003. Ecophysiology of cyanobacteria: implications for off-flavor management in pond aquaculture. pp. 107–132. In: A.M. Rimando and K.K. Schrader (Eds.).
Off-Flavors in Aquaculture
. American Chemical Society Symposium Series
848
. American Chemical Society, Washington.
Hunter, P. 2010. Massing life.
EMBO Reports
11
(7):511–514.
May, G. 2014.
Munchies.com
http//:munchies.vice.com/articles/we-should-be-eating-seaweed-by-the-bucketload
. Reprinted as Seaweed-worldwide food of the future. Algae Industry Magazine Sept. 3, 2014.
Perschbacher, P.W. 2013. A green revolution in cultured fish and livestock diets?
Journal of Fisheries and Livestock Production
1
(1). Open access at 1:e102. DOI: 10 4172/2332-2608.1000e102.
Rakocy, J.E. 2005.
Oreochromis niloticus
. Cultured Species Information Programme. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome.
Chapter 1Ecological Basis of Tilapia Co-culture Systems
Ana Milstein and Martha Hernández
Abstract: The joint culture of multiple species or even multiple life stages of the same species in the same system is a long–practiced method identified as co–culture or polyculture. Stocking several species with different food habits allows the effective exploitation of a variety of available foods in the ecosystem, thus improving economics and sustainability. Tilapia are omnivorous fishes grown in co–culture with a variety of other fish and crustacean species for production purposes, and/or environmental control, and/or with a predatory fish species to control tilapia recruitment in growout ponds. Tilapia co–culture is carried out in fishponds, rice fields, cages and pens within ponds, periphyton–based ponds, and partitioned and other intensive aquaculture systems. In all cases, pond ecology will largely be determined by the relationships among the different co–cultured species, the environment, and management decisions and procedures that are applied.
The ecological basis governing the functioning of aquatic ecosystems applies to aquaculture systems. The components are primary producers, consumers, and decomposers, among which predator–prey and competition relationships determine nutrient and organic matter flows. Over this general pattern, the relationships between organisms and environment differ with the cultured species involved, and there are differences related to specific characteristics of each production system and its management. This chapter presents the role of tilapia in the pond ecosystem, ecological aspects of tilapia co–culture with fish and crustaceans in several production systems, tilapia co–culture as a management tool for environmental control, and tilapia co–culture with a predator to control tilapia recruitment. Examples of synergistic mutual effects through the food web and environment are described for tilapia co–culture with carp in ponds and in rice fields; tilapia co–culture with catfish in ponds; cage–cum–pond and partitioned systems; and tilapia co–culture with crustaceans in ponds; cage–cum–pond; and periphyton–based ponds. Conceptual graphic models of the ecosystem functioning for some of those co–cultures are presented.
Keywords: ecology, food web, polyculture, tilapia
Introduction
The joint culture of multiple species or even multiple life stages of the same species in the same system is a long-practiced method indistinctly called co-culture or polyculture. Stocking several species with different feeding habits allows effectively exploiting a variety of available foods in the ecosystem, thus improving economics and sustainability. In aquaculture systems, in which this technology is practiced with a wide range of species combinations (Milstein 2005), wastes produced by one species may be inputs for other species, and supplemented organic wastes and/or feeds act as fertilizers of the heterotrophic and autotrophic food chains besides being utilized directly by the target cultured organisms.
In such co-culture systems, stocking density is a key factor that affects the amount of natural food available per fish and the level of supplementary feeding required (Hepher and Pruginin 1981). On the other hand, synergism and antagonism between ecologically different species depend on stocking densities of each fish and on food availability. With increasing stocking density, competition increases, fish shift to less efficient foods as their preferred sources become depleted, and fish production slows down. A balanced combination of fish species maximizes synergistic and minimizes antagonistic fish–fish and fish–environment relationships (Milstein 1992). The idea of multispecies fish co-culture was derived originally from the Chinese philosophy of harmony. Chinese fish farmers have so managed their ponds that the fish they stock harmonize with available fish foods and among fish species within the pond (Tang 1970). Over 60% of world aquaculture production occurs in China (FAO 2014b), where polyculture is the main growout technology employed.
Tilapia of several species are important target organisms in warm-water aquaculture. Tilapia are often co-cultured with other fish or crustacean species for production purposes, and/or environmental control, and/or with a predatory fish species to control tilapia recruitment in growout ponds. In all cases, pond ecology will largely be determined by the relationships among the different species co-cultured, the environment, and the management decisions and procedures applied.
Aquaculture Production: Ecology in Tilapia Co-culture Systems
The ecological basis governing the functioning of aquatic ecosystems applies to aquaculture systems. The components are primary producers, consumers, and decomposers, among which predator–prey and competition relationships determine nutrient and organic matter flows. Over this general pattern, the relationships between organisms and environment differ with the cultured species involved, and there are differences related to specific characteristics of each production system and its management.
Fishpond Ecosystem
Driving forces in a fishpond ecosystem are schematically presented in Figure 1.1. Phytoplankton, the assemblage of microscopic autotrophic organisms in the water column, is a key driver in such green water ecosystems. Through photosynthesis, the phytoplankton community captures energy from the sun to produce biomass that constitutes food for many zooplanktonic organisms (e.g., rotifers, cladocerans, copepods, and nauplii) and filter feeding fish (e.g., silver carp [Hypophthalmichthys molitrix], mrigal or white carp [Cirrhinus mrigala], tilapia). Phytoplankton liberate oxygen to the water column, which is used by fish and various other animals in the water body (zooplankton) and pond bottom (benthos) for respiration and by bacteria for nitrification and aerobic decomposition. Dead phytoplankton settle on the pond bottom contributing to detritus formation that provides food for some benthic organisms. Phytoplankton remove carbon dioxide from the water, leading to increased water pH and nutrients (mainly ammonia and orthophosphate). Under high pH, ammonium turns into the toxic ammonia form, so its removal by phytoplankton and nitrifying bacteria helps maintain a healthy pond environment. Fish, zooplankton, and benthos liberate carbon dioxide into the water through respiration, ammonia through excretion, and organic matter in their feces, molts (in the case of invertebrates), and dead bodies. Organic materials originating in the water column or from the terrestrial environment accumulate on the pond bottom. These include waste feeds, feces, dead organisms, crustacean molts, leaves, and other materials with low-energy content that provide substrates for bacteria colonization. Bacteria decompose those materials turning the resulting detritus available as food for benthic organisms (e.g., chironomid insect larvae, freshwater prawn) and bottom feeding fish (e.g., catfish, common carp). Bacterial mineralization of organic matter releases orthophosphate into the water, which is the phosphorus form that autotrophic organisms can absorb. Bacterial mineralization of proteins releases ammonia into the water. Phytoplankton and nitrifying bacteria in the water column compete for ammonia, which is more efficiently absorbed by the former. Bioturbation of sediments by benthic fish and invertebrates (reviewed by Adámek and Maršálek 2013) favors nutrient diffusion into the water column.
Figure 1.1 Relationships among organisms and environment in the fishpond ecosystem. Gray arrows: flow from phytoplankton. Black arrows: flow to phytoplankton.
Role of Tilapia in the Fishpond Ecosystem
The common name tilapia refers to a group of about 70 species of warm-water cichlid species in the genera Tilapia, Sarotherodon, and Oreochromis, which are native to Africa and the Middle East. Various tilapia species were introduced into many tropical, subtropical, and temperate regions of the world during the second half of the twentieth century. At present about 10 species and their hybrids are used in aquaculture, with Asia being the largest tilapia-producing continent. The aquaculture of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) goes back to Ancient Egypt and nowadays this is by far the most widely cultured tilapia species. It has become an important cultured species in many Asian countries, including Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, and Vietnam. Blue tilapia (Oreochromis aureus) is the northernmost natural occurring species, hence it is more cold tolerant than other tilapia species. The Mozambique tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus) is native to eastward-flowing rivers of central and southern Africa. It grows slower than Nile and blue tilapia, withstands a wide range of water temperatures, and is one of the most salt-tolerant tilapia species.
Tilapia species are basically omnivorous, feeding on phytoplankton, zooplankton, periphyton, aquatic plants, small invertebrates, benthic fauna, detritus with its associated bacteria, commercial feeds, and agricultural by-products. Unlike most fish species, most tilapia species can easily digest the tough cells of blue-green algae (cyanobacteria) due to their high stomach acidity, which can have a pH as low as 1.4 depending on species (Moriarty 1973; Getachew 1989; Jančula et al. 2008; Riedel and Costa-Pierce 2005; Hlophe et al. 2014). Some tilapia species, such as Nile tilapia, entrap suspended particles (including phytoplankton and bacteria) on mucous in the buccal cavity, although their main source of nutrition is obtained by surface grazing on periphyton mats (FAO 2014a). Other species, such as the blue tilapia, can modify their feeding habits from pelagic filter feeding, such as in Lake Kinnereth (Spataru and Zorn 1978) to bottom grazing in polyculture ponds (Spataru 1976) when plankton densities are low (Mallin 1985), becoming mostly detritivorous (Jiménez-Badillo and Nepita-Villanueva 2000).
Tilapia are successfully co-cultured with a variety of fish and crustacean species in fishponds, rice fields, cages within ponds, periphyton-based ponds, and partitioned and other intensive aquaculture systems. When stocking densities of the involved species are balanced, synergistic effects among species lead to increased food resources for each species and improved water quality, usually resulting in better fish growth (Milstein 1992). Examples of synergistic mutual effects through the food web and environment when stocking densities of the co-cultured species are balanced are herein presented for some combinations of species and culture systems.
Tilapia Co-culture with Carp in Ponds
Polyculture of two to seven carp species with different feeding habits is a traditional and common practice in Asia that has also spread to other continents (Edwards 2004; Milstein 2005). With the development and expansion of tilapia culture in the second half of the twentieth century, these omnivorous African and Middle Eastern fishes were incorporated into Asian carp ponds as a way to diversify and increase fish production. For example, in Bangladesh, the addition of Nile tilapia at 2,000/ha to a co-culture of bottom feeding common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and phytoplankton filter feeding rohu carp (Labeo rohita), stocked at 5,000 and 15,000/ha, increased nutrient concentrations in the water column, reduced total suspended solids and phytoplankton biomass, and resulted in additional fish production without affecting the growth and production of rohu and common carp (Rahman et al. 2008). In another study, the addition of 2,200 Nile tilapia to a polyculture system that included the filter feeders catla (Catla catla), rohu, and silver carp; the bottom-dwelling giant freshwater prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii); and the small carp mola (Amblypharyngodon mola) stocked, respectively, at 1,000, 3,000, 3,000, 4,000, and 10,000 individuals/ha, which led to increased yields of prawn and silver carp and to higher total yields and economic benefits as opposed to the absence of tilapia (Shahin et al. 2011).
Tilapia–carp synergistic mutual effects through the food web and the environment in earthen ponds are exemplified in Figure 1.2, which was mainly based on the study by Milstein and Svirsky (1996) of hybrid tilapia (O. niloticus × O. aureus) and common carp co-culture at stocking densities of 7,000–12,500 and 1,600–4,000/ha, under Israeli fish farm conditions. When searching for food, common carp stir the mud of the pond bottom; and the more intensively the larger the fish (Valdenberg et al. 2006; Adámek and Maršálek 2013), and more intensively than other bottom feeders such as the Indian carp mrigal (Milstein et al. 2002). This common carp behavior increased contact between bacteria in sediments and water, promoting aerobic processes such as rapid uptake of inorganic nitrogen compounds needed by bacteria for body protein buildup. This also made nutrients in the sediments available for algae shifting phytoplankton competition toward larger-sized algae, mainly the blue-green Microcystis sp. that bloomed. This resulted in a decrease in smaller algae species, which otherwise would accumulate because hybrid tilapia cannot graze on them. The increased phytoplankton production improved the oxygen regime in the pond and food availability for tilapia that grew better (average 2 g/day) than in monoculture (average 1.3 g/day). In turn, the tilapia hybrids fed on the organic sediment of the pond bottom consuming particles resuspended by carp, thus preventing an increase in organic load in the sediment and the concomitant development of anaerobic conditions. In addition, tilapia grazing in the water column strongly stimulated the development of a bloom of the blue-green alga Microcystis, keeping the algal population in the log phase of growth that maximizes photosynthesis and net primary production. The improved oxygen regime in the pond produced better growth of common carp in co-culture with tilapia hybrids (average 4.1 g/day) than in monoculture (average 3.2 g/day).
Figure 1.2 Synergistic mutual effects through the food web and environment between hybrid tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus × O. aureus) and the bottom feeder common carp (Cyprinus carpio).
Adapted from Milstein and Svirsky (1996).
Tilapia Co-culture with Carp in Rice Fields
In China and South and Southeast Asia, Nile tilapia are often stocked in rice fields (Fig. 1.3). The integration of fish into rice farming provides protein, especially for subsistence farmers who manage rain-fed agricultural systems. Relationships in the paddy–fish ecological system are exemplified in Figure 1.4, which was mainly based on the descriptions by Liu and Cai (1998) and Lu and Li (2006). Rice fields provide shade, shelter, and organic matter for fish, which in turn oxygenate soil and water, eat rice insect pests, and favor nutrient recycling. Shade reduces water temperature that in summer may reach lethal levels for fish and also limit phytoplankton development. The decaying leaves of rice favor development of microorganisms and detritus, which are important sources of fish food. Detritus, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and benthic invertebrates in the paddies serve as the natural food for fish. Fish excreta and dead organisms contribute to detritus and serve as natural fertilizers for rice and soil enrichment. Fish movement and feeding on the bottom detritus help loosen the surface soil on which rice is planted, increasing permeability and oxygen content to the soil, and thus favoring the absorption of nutrients by the paddy but also by unwanted aquatic vegetation. This bottom activity also liberates nutrients into the water making them available for phytoplankton. Fish respiration provides carbon dioxide that promotes photosynthetic activity. Fish feeding on the unwanted aquatic plants (mainly by grass carp, Ctenopharyngodon idella) reduce competition for light, space, and nutrients between rice and other macrophytes. Fish feeding on insect pests (mainly detritivores such as tilapia and common carp) reduce the need to apply pesticides. The effect is the enhanced production of rice in addition to a fish crop, along with a substantial diminution in the use of commercial fertilizers and pesticides.
Figure 1.3 Paddy–fish system in Bangladesh.
Photograph by Ana Milstein.
Figure 1.4 Rice–fish–environment relationships in the paddy–fish ecosystem.
In Vietnamese rice fields, Nile tilapia is most often reared with common carp and silver barb (Barbonymus (=Barbodes) gonionotus). Fish production is determined by rice management factors rather than by a fish polyculture strategy (Vromant et al. 2002). In this approach of intensive rice culture combined with extensive fish culture, fish yields are usually very low (about 300 kg/ha) since the rice field is not very suitable for fish production: the aquatic phase is temporary; dissolved oxygen levels and temperature values often exceed the fish tolerance limits; and shading by the rice crop keeps phytoplankton and zooplankton densities low. Accordingly, rice–fish systems need a trench or other type of refuge area for the fish within or adjacent to the rice field. Besides suppressing unwanted vegetation in the rice fields, the presence of the fish increases water turbidity in the trench through suspension of mineral and organic material due to fish perturbation; this increases the availability of nutrients, resulting in higher amounts of phytoplankton and protozoa production in the trench, supplying reasonable amounts of phytoplankton and zooplankton to the fish (Vromant et al. 2001). Vromant et al. (2002) analyzed data generated in eight experiments in such rice–fish systems, where Nile tilapia constituted 7–30% of the fish stocked and total stocking density was 0.5–2.0 fish/m2. They found that Nile tilapia often lacks food in rice fields, which increases intraspecific competition. As the growing season progresses and plankton abundance decreases due to increased rice biomass and consequent shading by the rice canopy, Nile tilapia shift to feeding on detritus, which increases interspecific competition with common carp. To improve the rice–fish system, those authors suggest either maintaining the current fish species combination but calculating their stocking density according to the trench area (not to the trench + rice-field as is the common practice) and increasing nutrient inputs in the trench (extra feed, fertilizing, manuring) to create distinguished trophic niches for the Nile tilapia and common carp, or omitting either Nile tilapia or common carp from the polyculture if increasing inputs is not possible.
Tilapia Co-culture with Catfish
Joint culture of several tilapia and catfish species is carried out in various culture systems. In Egyptian ponds, Nile tilapia and African catfish (Clarias gariepinus) when co-cultured in several proportions at a total stocking density of 30,000 fish/ha resulted in similar tilapia harvesting weight and growth rate compared to tilapia monoculture, better catfish growth rate than in catfish monoculture, and higher net profit in co-culture (Ibrahim and El Naggar 2010). In cage-cum-pond and pen-cum-pond systems in Asia (Yang and Lin 2000), high-valued fish species are stocked in cages and filter-feeding fish species are stocked free in the pond to utilize natural foods derived from cage wastes. A series of pond experiments carried out in Thailand integrating the intensive culture of hybrid catfish (Clarias macrocephalus × C. gariepinus) in cages or pens receiving formulated feed (stocking density equivalent to 3.5–25.0/m2) and of Nile tilapia with natural food in the open pond (stocking density 2/m2
