42 SEPTEMBER 2019 • WORLD AQUACULTURE • WWW.WAS.ORG TABLE 5. Effect of feeding method on shrimp production performance in commercial ponds in Ecuador stocked from 11-15/m2 using direct stocking of PLs. Feeding method n Harvest Density FCR Survival Growth Day of Biomass Production weight (g) (#/m2) (%) rate (g/wk) culture (kg/ha) cost (US$/lb) Acoustic feeder 78 22.2 14.6 1.84 55.8 1.22 128 1,801 $1.71 Timer feeder 40 20.9 12.7 1.80 59.1 1.34 111 1,557 $1.69 Multi-feeding (≥6 times/day) 57 22.7 12.1 2.00 66.4 1.21 133 1,812 $1.81 Broadcast feeding (<6 times/day) 329 18.5 12.0 1.97 54.5 1.16 113 1,194 $2.01 TABLE 6. Effect of feeding method on shrimp production performance in commercial ponds in Ecuador stocked from 11-15/m2 using stocking of juveniles from raceways. Feeding method n Harvest Density FCR Survival Growth Day of Biomass Production weight (g) (#/m2) (%) rate (g/wk) culture (kg/ha) cost (US$/lb) Acoustic feeder 78 22.2 14.6 1.84 55.8 1.22 128 1,801 $1.71 Timer feeder 40 20.9 12.7 1.80 59.1 1.34 111 1,557 $1.69 Multi-feeding (≥6 times/day) 57 22.7 12.1 2.00 66.4 1.21 133 1,812 $1.81 Broadcast feeding (<6 times/day) 329 18.5 12.0 1.97 54.5 1.16 113 1,194 $2.01 TABLE 7. Effect of feeding method on shrimp production performance in commercial ponds in Ecuador stocked from 11-15/m2 using stocking of juveniles from nursery ponds. Feeding method n Harvest Density FCR Survival Growth Day of Biomass Production weight (g) (#/m2) (%) rate (g/wk) culture (kg/ha) cost (US$/lb) Acoustic feeder 57 20.73 13.2 1.41 61.9 1.38 105 1,651 $1.39 Timer feeder 64 19.82 13.1 1.49 67.5 1.29 107 1,727 $1.42 Multi-feeding (≥6 times/d) 72 20.53 12.1 1.79 59.3 1.28 111 1,452 $1.73 Broadcast feeding (<6 times/d) 175 20.98 11.8 1.81 53.9 1.32 115 1,327 $1.84 For stocking from nurseries (Table 7), when comparing automatic feeding (acoustic and timer) with multi-feeding and traditional broadcast feeding, the stocking density was higher by 9 percent, with greater survival (+12 percent), slightly greater growth rate (+3 percent), with higher biomass (+18 percent). In economic terms the cost of shrimp production was reduced (-27 percent) from US$1.79/lb to US$1.41/lb. Discussion In summary, in all cases, the productive results achieved with automatic feeding (acoustic or timer) have been better than conventional feeding in terms of higher growth rate, lower FCR, a shorter culture period, greater survival, greater biomass and lower cost per pound of shrimp production. As an improvement opportunity, it is necessary to have more experience with automatic feeding management, to have more confidence that greater survival and biomass can be achieved and to avoid under-feeding. Therefore, the implementation of automatic feeding (acoustic or timer) is the best feeding strategy to achieve the improvement of technical efficiency in shrimp farming. Notes Máximo Quispe Chau, Technical Manager, Skretting LATAM, Guayaquil, Ecuador, email: maximo.quispe@skretting.com References Quispe, M. 2018. Exhibition XI International Shrimp Symposium. Panamá. Quispe, M. 2018. New alternatives in Precision Aquaculture, for the efficient management of shrimp farming. LAQUA18, WAS. SVS (Skretting Validation Station), automatic feeding management experiences, 2016-2017.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjExNDY=