40 SEPTEMBER 2019 • WORLD AQUACULTURE • WWW.WAS.ORG TABLE 2. Comparative results of the productive models: conventional feeding (2016) vs. automatic feeding (2017) in a commercial shrimp farm in Nicaragua. Location Nicaragua 2016 Nicaragua 2017 Productive model Conventional feeding Automatic feeding Feed brand Premiun 35% Premiun 35% Feed type Pellet Pellet Stocking type From nursery From nursery Feeding doses (#/d) Two Multiple Stocking density (#/m2) 10 14 40% Days of culture 100 93 -7% Harvest weight (g) 17 21 24% Growth rate (g/wk) 1.16 1.55 33% Total biomass (lb/ha) 1,719 4,591 167% Survival (%) 47 72 54% FCR 1.5 1.3 -13% Production cost (US$/lb) 1.98 1.21 -39% TABLE 3. Comparative results of the productive models: conventional feeding (2016) vs. automatic feeding (2017) in a commercial shrimp farm in Nicaragua. Location Nicaragua 2016 Nicaragua 2017 Productive model Conventional feeding Automatic feeding Feed brand Premiun 35% Premiun 35% Feed type Pellet Pellet Stocking type Direct Direct Feeding doses (#/d) Two Multiple Stocking density (#/m2) 22 22 0% Days of culture 133 114 -14% Harvest weight (g) 21 21 0% Growth rate (g/wk) 1.11 1.29 17% Total biomass (lb/ha) 4,355 6,000 38% Survival (%) 43 59 38% FCR 1.7 1.7 0% Production cost (US$/lb) 1.54 1.4 -9% TABLE 4. Comparative results of the productive models: conventional feeding (2016) vs automatic feeding (2017) at a commercial shrimp farm in Honduras. Location Honduras 2016 Honduras 2017 Productive model Conventional feeding Automatic feeding Feed brand Premiun 35% Premiun 35% Feed type Pellet Pellet Stocking type Direct Direct Feeding doses (#/d) Two Multiple Stocking density (#/m2) 25 28 12% Days of culture 127 126 -1% Harvest weight (g) 18 22 22% Growth rate (g/wk) 0.99 1.22 23% Total biomass (lb/ha) 3,958 6,624 67% Survival (%) 40 49 22% FCR 2.2 1.7 -23% Production cost (US$/lb) 1.84 1.4 -24%
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=