Aguila Gaibor, Guillermo Andres(2023)EFECTO DE LA DENSIDAD EN EL CRECIMIENTO DE ALEVINES DE Mesoheros festae, EN TECNOLOGÍA DE RECAMBIO.Quevedo.UTEQ.83p.
In Ecuador, inland water fish farming is an activity of increasing importance with great economic, social and environmental interest. It involves different productive sectors and native species. (Mesoheros festae), is a cichlid, found along the Pacific drainages, specifically from the Esmeraldas Riv...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | bachelorThesis |
| Lenguaje: | spa |
| Publicado: |
2023
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://repositorio.uteq.edu.ec/handle/43000/7984 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | In Ecuador, inland water fish farming is an activity of increasing importance with great economic, social and environmental interest. It involves different productive sectors and native species. (Mesoheros festae), is a cichlid, found along the Pacific drainages, specifically from the Esmeraldas River in Ecuador, passing through the Guayas River, to the Tumbes River in Peru. The objective of the research was to determine the effect of density on the growth of Mesoheros festae fingerlings, in replacement technology. The Origin of the specimens belong to the fish farm of the Faculty of Livestock and Biological Sciences of the Quevedo State Technical University, the initial average weight of the animals was 1.5 g. 16 circular cages built in plastic mesh were removed, with the following dimensions: 0.50 m in diameter and 0.90 m in height and a 0.5-inch mesh eye, the measurements of the pond were 7 m by 4 m concrete. m, x 0.80 m, equipped with water inlet and outlet, water exchange was 30% daily. The M. festae fingerlings used in this work had an average initial weight of 1.5 grams, which were fed with extruded feed for tilapias that contained 38 % protein. The final weight at 56 days of the experiment the fingerlings of the three treatments presented the following reports: Treatment 1: 4.7 ±0.87 a; Treatment 2: 5.3 ±0.16 treatment T3 6. 2 ±0.64, the results showed statistical differences between treatments. |
|---|