COST CONTAINMENT OPTIONS IN SEMI-INTENSIVE TILAPIA CULTURE: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATE DAY FEEDING STRATEGY

COST CONTAINMENT OPTIONS IN COST CONTAINMENT OPTIONS IN SEMI-INTENSIVE TILAPIA SEMI-INTENSIVE TILAPIA

CULTURE: EVALUATION OF CULTURE: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATE DAY FEEDING ALTERNATE DAY FEEDING

STRATEGYSTRATEGY

Eddie Boy Jimenez, Remedios B. Eddie Boy Jimenez, Remedios B. Bolivar Bolivar Freshwater Aquaculture Freshwater Aquaculture CenterCenterCentral Luzon State University Central Luzon State University Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Science City of Muñoz, Nueva EcijaEcijaPHILIPINESPHILIPINES

andand

Christopher L. Brown Christopher L. Brown Marine Biology ProgramMarine Biology ProgramFlorida International UniversityFlorida International University3000 NE 151 St. ACI 378, North 3000 NE 151 St. ACI 378, North Miami, Florida, USAMiami, Florida, USA

Aquaculture Collaborative Aquaculture Collaborative Research Support ProgramResearch Support Program

Funding Agency:

US Agency for International Development (USAID)

Intensification of CultureIntensification of Culture Resulted to feed Resulted to feed

dependency dependency 60-70% of 60-70% of

production costs is production costs is due to feed costdue to feed cost

63%

Farm Budget –Tilapia Pond Culture in the Philippines (US$/ha/yr)*

0.80Price/kg (US$)

756.02Fingerlings

5,248.00Feeds

108.34Fertilizers

853.04Diesel

394.36Hired Labor

35%Profit Margin

0.52Cost/kg (US$)

4,535.54Net Income

8,341.52Total Cost

981.76Non-cash Cost

Less: Cash Cost

12,877.06Gross Income (US$)

1 US$=P50

63%

Conceptual FrameworkConceptual FrameworkFeeding Strategies Feeding Strategies

I.I. Delayed feeding onsetDelayed feeding onsetII.II. Sub-satiation feeding Sub-satiation feeding III.III. Two-stage feed reduction Two-stage feed reduction

strategy (delayed feeding strategy (delayed feeding onset + sub-satiation feeding)onset + sub-satiation feeding)

IV.IV. Alternate day feeding strategyAlternate day feeding strategy

I.I. Delayed Feeding OnsetDelayed Feeding Onset

start of feeding 45 days and 75 days after stocking of tilapia fingerlings

Mean weight (g) of Nile tilapia in ponds at two Mean weight (g) of Nile tilapia in ponds at two feeding onsetsfeeding onsets

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150

C ulture per iod ( day s )

Me

an

bo

dy

we

igh

t

E arly

Del ay ed

On-farm mean growth On-farm mean growth performance of Nile tilapia in performance of Nile tilapia in

the two feeding onsetsthe two feeding onsets

PerformancePerformanceOnset of feedingOnset of feeding

45 days45 days 75 days75 days

Mean final weight (g)Mean final weight (g) 164.7164.7± ±

22.922.9151.7151.7± ±

20.420.4

Mean daily weight gain Mean daily weight gain (g day(g day-1-1))

1.101.10±±0.40.400

1.011.01±±0.360.36

Extrapolated gross yield Extrapolated gross yield (kg ha(kg ha--11))

5,1405,140±±555454

4,9264,926±±524524

Feed conversion Feed conversion efficiencyefficiency

1.611.61±±0.10.199

1.251.25±±0.180.18

Survival (%)Survival (%) 8585±±6.36.3 8787±±5.55.5

Quantity of feeds (kg haQuantity of feeds (kg ha--

11))8,2998,299±±997474

6,0686,068±±606606

Partial budget analysis - Partial budget analysis - II

INCOMEINCOME 45 days45 days 75 days75 days

US$ US$ 5,321.035,321.03

US$ US$ 4,929.664,929.66

COSTSCOSTS

FingerlingsFingerlings 320.00320.00 320.00320.00

FeedsFeeds 1,771.071,771.07 1,295.061,295.06

FertilizersFertilizers 123.24123.24 122.40122.40

Diesel & oilDiesel & oil 40.0040.00 40.0040.00

ElectricityElectricity 25.0025.00 25.0025.00

LaborLabor 266.70266.70 190.50190.50

PROFITPROFIT US$ US$ 2,775.022,775.02

US$ US$ 2,936.702,936.70

II.II. Sub-satiation Feeding Sub-satiation Feeding StrategyStrategy

Tilapia were fed at 100% satiation and 67% satiation levels starting at 45 day onset

Mean weight of Nile tilapia in Mean weight of Nile tilapia in ponds at two satiation levelsponds at two satiation levels

020406080

100120140160180

0 30 60 90 120Culture period (days)

Mea

n w

eigh

t (g)

100% SATIATION 67% SATIATION

On-farm mean growth On-farm mean growth performance of Nile tilapia at performance of Nile tilapia at

two satiation levelstwo satiation levels

PerformancePerformanceSatiation levelsSatiation levels

100%100% 67%67%

Mean final weight (g)Mean final weight (g) 149.05149.05±4±455

154.0154.0±26±26


1.24±0.381.24±0.38 1.28±0.221.28±0.22


3,1363,136±1,2±1,25757

3,5753,575±1,2±1,25757


2.39±1.102.39±1.10 2.39±1.102.39±1.10

Survival (%)Survival (%) 5757±22±22 6565±20±20

Quantity of feeds (kg haQuantity of feeds (kg ha-1-1)) 9,396±2,09,396±2,09898

7,554±177,554±175454

Partial budget analysis - Partial budget analysis - IIII

INCOMEINCOME

100% 100% satiation, satiation,

45 day onset45 day onset

67% satiation, 67% satiation, 45 day onset45 day onset

US$ 3,165.13US$ 3,165.13 US$ 3,559.39US$ 3,559.39

COSTSCOSTS


FeedsFeeds 2,255.042,255.04 1,813.021,813.02




LaborLabor 195.00195.00 195.00195.00

PROFITPROFIT US$ 188.81US$ 188.81 US$ 1,025.73US$ 1,025.73

III.III. Two-stage Feed Two-stage Feed Reduction StrategyReduction Strategy

To evaluate possible additive To evaluate possible additive effects of two methods of cost effects of two methods of cost reduction – delayed onset of reduction – delayed onset of feeding (75 days feeding onset) feeding (75 days feeding onset) and feeding at sub-satiation and feeding at sub-satiation level in the culture of Nile level in the culture of Nile tilapia.tilapia.

Mean weight of tilapia in the two-stage feed Mean weight of tilapia in the two-stage feed reduction strategyreduction strategy

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 30 60 90 120 150

Culture Period (days)

Mea

n b

od

y w

eig

ht

(g)

100% Satiation 67% Satiation

On-farm mean growth On-farm mean growth performance of Nile tilapia in performance of Nile tilapia in

the two feeding onsetsthe two feeding onsets

PerformancePerformance75 days feeding75 days feeding

100% 100% satiation satiation

levellevel

67% 67% satiation satiation

levellevel

Mean final weight (g)Mean final weight (g) 104.2104.2± ± 37.137.1 91.791.7± ±

21.621.6

Mean daily weight gain (g Mean daily weight gain (g dayday-1-1))

0.690.69±±0.250.25 0.610.61±±0.10.144


3,1963,196±±1,491,4955

2,8152,815±±1,1,098098


3.583.58±±1.221.22 2.732.73±±1.71.799

Survival (%)Survival (%) 79.779.7±±1515 76.776.7±±1616

Quantity of feeds (kg haQuantity of feeds (kg ha-1-1)) 10,41610,416±±3,63,64242

7,0947,094±±2,2,554554

Partial budget analysis - Partial budget analysis - IIIIII

INCOMEINCOME

100% 100% satiation, satiation,

75 days onset75 days onset

67% satiation, 67% satiation, 75 days onset75 days onset

US$ 2,801.95US$ 2,801.95 US$ 2,296.15US$ 2,296.15

COSTSCOSTS


FeedsFeeds 2,916.282,916.28 1,986.351,986.35




LaborLabor 225.00225.00 225.00225.00

PROFITPROFIT -(US$ 945.75)-(US$ 945.75) -(US$ 521.57)-(US$ 521.57)

IV. Alternate Day Feeding IV. Alternate Day Feeding StrategyStrategy

To determine To determine the effect of the effect of alternate day alternate day feeding on the feeding on the grow-out grow-out efficiency and efficiency and net profit in net profit in semi-intensive semi-intensive tilapia culture.tilapia culture.

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 29 30 31

Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods

Nine (9) participating farmsNine (9) participating farms Two ponds in each farm were Two ponds in each farm were

made made available for the studyavailable for the study Ponds were fertilized with Ponds were fertilized with

inorganic inorganic fertilizers at fertilizers at the rates of 28 kg N and the rates of 28 kg N and 5.6 kg P 5.6 kg P haha-1-1 wk wk-1-1

Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods Stocking of pondsStocking of ponds

Sex-reversed Nile Sex-reversed Nile tilapiatilapia

Stocking rate : 4 Stocking rate : 4 fish mfish m-2-2

Materials and MethodsMaterials and Methods

Feeds & feeding Feeds & feeding Commercial feedsCommercial feeds Feeding guideFeeding guide

Duration of CultureDuration of Culture 120 days120 days

Fish sampling and Fish sampling and water quality water quality monitoringmonitoring Every 2 weeksEvery 2 weeks

Growth trend of Nile tilapia in the Growth trend of Nile tilapia in the

daily and alternate day feedingdaily and alternate day feeding strategiesstrategies

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

180.00

0 15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120

Culture period (days)

Mea

n w

eig

ht (

g)

Daily

Alternate

On-farm mean growth On-farm mean growth performance of Nile tilapia in the performance of Nile tilapia in the

two feeding frequenciestwo feeding frequencies

PerformancePerformanceFrequency of Frequency of

feedingfeeding

DailyDaily Alternate Alternate dayday

Mean final weight (g)Mean final weight (g) 167.4167.4±±5533

137.8137.8±±7272


1.391.39±±0.40.444

1.151.15±±0.600.60


2,9942,994±±880808

2,8072,807±±878755


2.202.20±±0.70.733

1.001.00±±0.340.34

Survival (%)Survival (%) 55.355.3±±2020 63.463.4±±2626

Quantity of feeds (kg haQuantity of feeds (kg ha--

11))6,3316,331±±1,1,088088

2,6892,689±±606011

Partial budget analysis - Partial budget analysis - IVIV

INCOMEINCOMEDaily Daily Alternate DayAlternate Day

US$ 2,730.68US$ 2,730.68 US$ 2,418.40US$ 2,418.40

COSTSCOSTS


FeedsFeeds 2,214.442,214.44 963.94963.94




LaborLabor 360.00360.00 180.00180.00

PROFITPROFIT -(US$ -(US$ 478.84)478.84)

US$ 639.38US$ 639.38

ConclusionsConclusions

Alternate day feeding strategy Alternate day feeding strategy can provide another cost can provide another cost containment feeding option for containment feeding option for tilapia farmers.tilapia farmers.

A cost saving of more than 50% A cost saving of more than 50% was realized. The remarkable was realized. The remarkable saving on feed cost was not saving on feed cost was not accompanied by any statistically accompanied by any statistically significant reduction in fish significant reduction in fish yield.yield.


Aside from the feed cost saving, the Aside from the feed cost saving, the alternate day feeding strategy alternate day feeding strategy appears cost-effective because of appears cost-effective because of the substantial labor cost that can the substantial labor cost that can also be saved. The farm worker can also be saved. The farm worker can do other farm jobs as necessary.do other farm jobs as necessary.

It is environmentally desirable It is environmentally desirable because of the reduced organic because of the reduced organic loading of the pond system.loading of the pond system.


It is easily adoptable because It is easily adoptable because the technique does not the technique does not require any complicated require any complicated procedure or use of other procedure or use of other farm inputs.farm inputs.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTACKNOWLEDGMENT

Farmer-Farmer-collaboratorscollaborators

Project staffProject staff

Thank youThank you

Documents

COST CONTAINMENT OPTIONS IN SEMI-INTENSIVE TILAPIA CULTURE: EVALUATION OF ALTERNATE DAY FEEDING STRATEGY