ISSN: 2157-7625
Journal of Ecosystem & Ecography
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Evaluating Water Quality Parameters for Tank Aquaculture of Cat Fish in Cameroon

Eyongetta Stanley Njieassam*

University of Buea, molyko to Buea town Rd, Buea, Cameroon.

*Corresponding Author:
Njieassam ES
University of Buea
molyko to Buea town Rd
Buea, Cameroon
Tel: +237677160363
E-mail: stanley_emann@yahoo.co.uk

Received Date: June 15, 2015; Accepted Date: July 29, 2016; Published Date: August 05, 2016

Citation: Njieassam ES (2016) Evaluating Water Quality Parameters for Tank Aquaculture of Cat Fish in Cameroon. J Ecosys Ecograph 6:203. doi:10.4172/2157- 7625.1000203

Copyright: © 2016 Njieassam ES. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Journal of Ecosystem & Ecography

Abstract

The water quality parameters were evaluated for feasibility of aquaculture in Catfish Clarias gariepinus for 56 days fishe of standard length 63.000 ± 2.361 mm were stocked in equal numbers in fifteen rectangular plastic tanks of size (0.32 m × 0.45 m × 0.24 m) in three replicates per treatment with water level maintained at 3/4 full. The water quality values were taken twice a week and recorded till the end of the experiment. The paired sample correlation was used to compare while the non-parametric tests were used to compare the significant differences for the four treatment groups. At the end of the 56 days study period, the non-parametric Spearman’s Rho test also gave a negative correlation between weights gained and dissolved oxygen values for all treatments and within weeks.

Keywords

Catfish; Aquaculture; Water; Correlation; Dissolved oxygen; Temperature; Agricultural waste

Introduction

Food and physical characteristics of the water including temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity and other interacting factors have a limiting effect on the site viability and carrying capacity hence fish survival, growth and health condition may be affected with one or more of these factors. By controlling the optimum feeding frequency, farmers can successfully reduce the feed cost, maximize growth and also able to manage other factors such as individual size variation and water qualities which are deemed important in rearing of fish in cultured conditions [1]. Many fish species are capable of efficiently converting organic waste such as sewage, piggery, poultry, cow dung as well as other organic industrial by-products and agricultural waste into useful protein, thus contributing to the management of waste in our environment [2,3].

The African catfish is suitable for aquaculture because it grows fast, feeds on a large variety of agriculture by products, tolerates high concentrations of ammonia (NH3), nitrite (NO2), and resist also low oxygen concentrations in water because the fish can be able to utilize atmospheric as well as dissolved oxygen due to the fact that it has well developed air breathing organs [4].

Although the African catfish are efficient opportunists and survivors, equipped to exploit whatever resources are available and have a wide tolerance to environmental extremes, their various tolerance limit based on field studies conducted by Bruton [5] are as follows; water temperature of 8 to 35ºC; breeding >18ºC, Water temperature range for egg hatching is 17 to 32ºC, Salinity, 0 to 12 ppt, 0 to 2.5 ppt is optimal, Oxygen level ranges from 0 to 100% saturation. They are efficient and obligate air breather, which will drown if denied access to air but have strong resistance to desiccation as a result of their air breathing habits, wide pH tolerance and turbidity [6].

Pedini [7] reported that Sub-Saharan Africa is facing problems with regard to the adoption and sustainability of aquaculture and development momentum is yet to materialize. The code of conduct for responsible fisheries includes responsible practices to be observed with a view to ensuring the effective protection, conservation, management and development of living aquatic resources, with due respect to the ecosystem and biodiversity. Thus the main objectives in this research is to observe the water quality parameter that can effect tank aquaculture.

Material/Methods

This experiment was carried out in the Life Science Laboratory of the University of Buea, South West Region of Cameroon. This area is situated in the tropical region and characterized by mean monthly rainfall ranging from 2416 to 2465 mm. The mean monthly temperature ranges from 21-24ºC.

Experimental design

The experiment was carried out using rectangular plastic tanks of 0.32 m × 0.45 m × 0.24 m installed in the University of Buea Lab. A total of 15 plastic tanks were used. Prior to the start of the experiment, the tanks were cleaned, and allowed to dry for 24 hours after which they were filled with dechlorinated water to 2/3 the volume. The tanks were aerated throughout the experiment using 2 mm pressure tubes connected from an aquarium air-pumps (Tetratec APS 150, Germany) in order to help replenish the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water found in the tanks and also to produce some current for the movement of food particles in the water. The instrument used in distributing air into the various plastic tanks was Robinet Metal S/S divider, made in China. Also the tanks were covered with a net of 2 mm mesh size in order to prevent the fishes in the tanks from skipping out and also to protect the tanks from foreign materials or predators. Five treatments were used with three replicates, where each of the replicates in the various treatments had labels T0D1, T0D2, T0D3 for treatment zero and T1D1, T1D2, T1D3 for treatment one, T2D1, T2D2, T2D3 for treatment two, T3D1, T3D2, T3D3 for treatment three and T4D1, T4D2, T4D3 for treatment four. Uneaten feed and faeces were siphoned every morning prior to feeding using an 8 mm pressure tube [8]. Water quality values were taken twice per week and mortality was recorded.

Fish feeding and tank management

The fish were fed 5% of their body weight in two rations, during the morning at 7.00-8.00 am and the evening at 5.00-6.00 pm throughout the experiment [9]. Left over feed and faeces in each tank were siphoned every morning prior to feeding [10].

Monitoring of water quality

Physico-chemical parameters in the various fish tanks was taken twice per week for eight weeks specifically every Wednesdays and Saturdays during the early morning periods prior to siphoning and feeding [11,12]. The temperature was measured using EXTECH Instruments (EXTECH Digital Thermometer 39240), dissolved oxygen was measured using EXTECH Instruments (EXSTIK II, Dissolve Oxygen Module DO600, made in Taiwan), pH was measured using HANNA Instruments (Woonsocket RI USA, HI98107 made in Europe), electrical conductivity was measured using HANNA Instruments (MS Dist4, HI98304, made in Mauritius) while salinity and total dissolve solids (TDS) were calculated from the electrical conductivity readings as described by Paul Dohrman.

Results

Data processing and analysis

All data collected were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Standard version, Release 17.00 (SPSS Inc. 2008). Data were analyzed using the following systematic approach.

Water quality parameters for the various treatments

pH: pH for the various treatments were similar within each week and within treatments throughout the experimental period (Table 1).

Case Summaries
  pH for various Treatments KW
(P-Value)
Weeks Control (N=51)
Mean ± SEM
T1 (N=51)
Mean ± SEM
T2 (N=51)
Mean ± SEM
T3 (N=51)
Mean ± SEM
T4 (N=51)
Mean ± SEM
W0 7.267 ± 0.049 7.333 ± 0.021 7.267 ± 0.021 7.333 ± 0.021 7.350 ± 0.022 χ2 = 6.276
P = 0.179
W1 7.333 ± 0.021 7.167 ± 0.021 7.283 ± 0.021 7.250 ± 0.022 7.333 ± 0.033 χ2 = 16.741
P = 0.002
W2 7.333 ± 0.021 7.200 ± 0.026 7.250 ± 0.022 7.250 ± 0.043 7.283 ± 0.054 χ2 = 7.240
P = 0.124
W3 7.400 ± 0.037 7.200 ± 0.052 7.283 ± 0.031 7.367 ± 0.021 7.383 ± 0.017 χ2 = 14.703
P = 0.005
W4 7.317 ± 0.031 7.250 ± 0.022 7.283 ± 0.048 7.333 ± 0.033 7.400 ± 0.000 χ2 =11.451
P= 0.022
W5 7.350 ± 0.034 7.267 ± 0.042 7.267 ± 0.033 7.383 ± 0.031 7.417 ± 0.017 χ2 =12.734
P = 0.013
W6 7.283 ± 0.031 7.217 ± 0.031 7.317 ± 0.031 7.400 ± 0.026 7.417 ± 0.017 χ2 = 18.031
P =0.001
W7 7.250 ± 0.043 7.283 ± 0.017 7.333 ± 0.033 7.350 ± 0.043 7.367 ± 0.033 χ2 =6.385
P=0.172
W8 7.233 ± 0.021 7.367 ± 0.021 7.333 ± 0.021 7.400 ± 0.000 7.433 ± 0.042 χ2 = 16.470
P = 0.002

Table 1: Weekly pH for various treatments.

Weekly temperature: Temperature values for the various treatments were similar within each week and within treatment throughout the experimental period (Table 2).

Case Summaries
  Temperature for Various Treatments KW
(P-Value)
Weeks Control Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4
W0 21.800 ± 0.052 21.783 ± 0.017 21.817 ± 0.065 21.800 ± 0.052 21.833 ± 0.061 χ2=0.283
P=0.991
W1 21.967 ± 0.042 21.983 ± 0.048 21.917 ± 0.060 21.933 ± 0.042 22.000 ± 0.045 χ2=1.742
P=0.783
W2 21.367 ± 0.171 21.433 ± 0.171 21.350 ± 0.161 21.367 ± 0.143 21.450 ± 0.161 χ2=0.975
P=0.914
W3 22.233 ± 0.141 22.283 ± 0.133 22.217 ± 0.119 22.217 ± 0.119 22.317 ± 0.117 χ2=1.260
P=0.868
W4 22.550 ± 0.043 22.583 ± 0.040 22.500 ± 0.058 22.500 ± 0.058 22.567 ± 0.061 χ2=1.921
P=0.750
TW5 22.417 ± 0.105 22.450 ± 0.118 22.417 ± 0.117 22.417 ± 0.119 22.583 ± 0.133 χ2=1.299
P=0.862
W6 22.067 ± 0.067 22.100 ± 0.077 22.050 ± 0.085 22.100 ± 0.063 22.150 ± 0.109 χ2=0.918
P=0.922
W7 22.617 ± 0.075 22.633 ± 0.061 22.567 ± 0.049 22.550 ± 0.043 22.717 ± 0.060 χ2=4.395
P=0.355
W8 22.167 ± 0.042 22.167 ± 0.021 22.133 ± 0.055 22.200 ± 0.063 22.367 ± 0.112 χ2=3.623
P=0.459

Table 2: Weekly temperature for various treatments.

Dissolve oxygen: Dissolve Oxygen values for the various treatments were slightly different within each week and within treatments during the experimental period (Table 3).

Case Summaries
  Dissolve Oxygen for Various Treatments KW
  Weeks Control Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4 (P-Value)
W0 3.582 ± 0.148 3.273 ± 0.429 3.677 ± 0.341 4.383 ± 0.184 4.400 ± 0.207 χ2 = 13.312
P = 0.010
W1 3.997 ± 0.382 3.928 ± 0.281 3.728 ± 0.163 4.288 ± 0.395 4.058 ± 0.319 χ2 = 1.108
P = 0.893
W2 3.365 ± 0.60 3.875 ± 0.377 4.082 ± 0.331 4.058 ± 0.344 4.190 ± 0.397 χ2 = 2.626
P = 0.622
W3 3.368 ± 0.164 2.808 ± 0.221 3.420 ± 0.181 3.852 ± 0.212 3.705 ± 0.158 χ2 = 11.611
P = 0.020
W4 2.560 ± 0.156 2.055 ± 0.209 2.385 ± 0.277 2.952 ± 0.406 3.555 ± 0.150 χ2 = 12.26
P = 0.015
W5 3.382 ± 0.273 2.753 ± 0.246 3.068 ± 0.375 4.097 ± 0.330 4.285 ± 0.103 χ2 = 14.77
P = 0.005
W6 3.097 ± 0.335 2.797 ± 0.387 3.210 ± 0.497 4.035 ± 0.395 4.757 ± 0.161 χ2 = 13.05
P = 0.011
W7 2.722 ± 0.287 2.568 ± 0.299 3.093 ± 0.501 2.838 ± 0.280 3.220 ± 0.390 χ2=2.262
P = 0.688
W8 3.163 ± 0.067 3.163 ± 0.316 3.060 ± 0.074 2.623 ± 0.113 3.033 ± 0.280 χ2 = 4.903
P = 0.297

Table 3: Weekly dissolve oxygen for various treatments.

Electrical conductivity: Electrical Conductivity for the various treatments was somehow similar within each week and within treatments although there were some insignificant variations during the experimental period (Table 4).

  Electrical Conductivity for various Treatments KW (P-Value)
Weeks Control Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4
W0 0.345 ± 0.10 0.337 ± 0.009 0.320 ± 0.003 0.335 ± 0.003 0.313 ± 0.004 χ2=13.163
P=0.011
W1 0.300 ± 0.000 0.300 ± 0.000 0.300 ± 0.000 0.300 ± 0.000 0.300 ± 0.000 χ2=0.000
P=1.000
W2 0.350 ± 0.022 0.350 ± 0.022 0.350 ± 0.022 0.367 ± 0.033 0.350 ± 0.022 χ2=0.125
P=0.998
W3 0.350 ± 0.022 0.350 ± 0.022 0.350 ± 0.022 0.350 ± 0.022 0.317 ± 0.017 χ2=2.100
P=0.717
W4 0.383 ± 0.017 0.383 ± 0.017 0.333 ± 0.021 0.383 ± 0.017 0.350 ± 0.022 χ2=5.800
P=0.215
W5 0.300 ± 0.000 0.300 ± 0.000 0.300 ± 0.000 0.300 ± 000 0.250 ± 0.22 χ2=12.889
P=0.012
W6 0.283 ± 0.017 0.283 ± 0.017 0.283 ± 0.017 0.250 ± 0.022 0.250 ± 0.022 χ2=3.683
P=0.451
W7 0.283 ± 0.017 0.283 ± 0.017 0.283 ± 0.017 0.283 ± 0.017 0.267 ± 0.021 χ2=0.806
P=0.938
W8 0.300 ± 0.000 0.300 ± 0.000 0.300 ± 0.000 0.300 ± 0.000 0.300 ± 0.000 χ2=0.000
P=1.000

Table 4: Electrical conductivity for various treatments.

Case Summaries

Total dissolved solids

The Total dissolved Solids for the various treatments were also similar within each week and within treatments although there were some insignificant variations during the experimental period (Table 5).

Case Summaries
Weeks Total Dissolved Solids for Various Treatments KW
(P-Value)
Control Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4
W0 0.228 ± 0.007 0.225 ± 0.006 0.210 ± 0.003 0.223 ± 0.003 0.207 ± 0.002 χ2 = 13.055
P = 0.011
W1 0.200 ± 0.000 0.200 ± 0.000 0.200 ± 0.000 0.200 ± 0.000 0.200 ± 0.000 χ2 = 0.000
P = 1.000
W2 0.235 ± 0.016 0.235 ± 0.016 0.235 ± 0.016 0.247 ± 0.023 0.235 ± 0.016 χ2 = 0.125
P = 0.998
W3 0.235 ± 0.016 0.235 ± 0.016 0.235 ± 0.016 0.235 ± 0.016 0.228 ± 0.018 χ2 = 0.126
P = 0.998
W4 0.258 ± 0.012 0.2583 ± 0.012 0.223 ± 0.015 0.258 ± 0.012 0.235 ± 0.016 χ2 = 5.800
P = 0.215
W5 0.200 ± 0.000 0.200 ± 0.000 0.200 ± 0.000 0.200 ± 0.000 0.165 ± 0.016 χ2 = 12.889
P = 0.012
W6 0.188 ± 0.012 0.188 ± 0.012 0.188 ± 0.012 0.165 ± 0.016 0.165 ± 0.016 χ2 = 3.683
P = 0.451
W7 0.188 ± 0.012 0.188 ± 0.012 0.188 ± 0.012 0.188 ± 0.012 0.177 ± 0.015 χ2 = 0.806
P = 0.938
W8 0.200 ± 0.000 0.200 ± 0.000 0.200 ± 0.000 0.200 ± 0.000 0.200 ± 0.000 χ2 = 0.000
P = 1.000

Table 5: Total dissolved solids for various treatments.

The correlation between water parameters and growth performance was assessed using the non-parametric Spearman Rho’s Correlation at the 0.05 significance level (Alpha=0.05) (Table 6). This shows that there is a negative correlation between weight gained and Dissolve Oxygen concentration in water between all the treatments during the experiment which is indirectly proportional. It shows that as the fish are increasing in weight, there is a significant drop in Dissolve Oxygen concentration from the initial week to the last week while the other water quality parameters did not vary significantly with weight gained.

Dependent (Weight gain) pHW TempW DOW ECW TDSW SalW
R 1.000 0.100 0.600** -0.400* -0.400* -0.400*
P-Value 0.000 0.599 0.000 0.029 0.029 0.029
R -0.872** -0.205 -0.400 0.354 0.354 0.354
P-Value 0.001 0.570 0.252 0.316 0.316 0.316
R 0.300 0.564** -0.800** 0.000 0.000 0.000
P-Value 0.107 0.001 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
R 0.100 -0.975** 0.100 -0.447* -0.447* 0.100
P-Value 0.599 0.000 0.599 0.013 0.013 0.599
R -0.667** 0.224 -0.600** 0.000 0.000 0.000
P-Value 0.000 0.235 0.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
R -0.700** -0.821** -0.700** 0.866** 0.866** 0.866**
P-Value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
R -0.700** -0.400* -0.300 0.707** 0.707** 0.707**
P-Value 0.000 0.029 0.107 0.000 0.000 0.000
R -0.600** -0.564** -0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000
P-Value 0.000 0.001 0.788 0.000 0.000 0.000

Table 6: Correlation test.

R is the Rho’s correlation; P is the 95% confidence level; pH W is the water acidity of the various weeks; TempW is the temperature at the various week; DOW is the Dissolve Oxygen value within the various weeks; ECW is the Electrical Conductivity Value within the weeks; TDSW is the Total Dissolved Solids within the weeks; SalW is the Salinity values at the various weeks.

Discussion

The water quality parameters were similar to those reported by Sogbesan et al. [12]; Amisah et al. [13] and Eyo et al. [14]. There was a significant difference (p<0.05) within weeks for pH except for week 1, while the temperature had no significant difference (p>0.05) within weeks [15,16]. Also there was a significant difference (p<0.05) for dissolve Oxygen levels within weeks except for weeks 1,2,7 and 8 while the electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids and salinity had no significant difference (p>0.05)for weeks 2,3,4,6 and 7 within weeks while all the water quality parameters remained fairly nonsignificant between treatments throughout the experimental period. The reason for the significance of pH at week 1 can be due to the fact that at the beginning of the experiment, there was little or no dissolved feed materials and faeces in the plastic tanks which can cause a rise in pH. Also the Spearman rho’s test gave a negative correlation between dissolve oxygen and weight gained and this was merely due to the fact that as the fish increases in size and in age, their activity and metabolism increases thereby increasing the demand for dissolve oxygen in the plastic tanks; but in the context of this study, water replacement and supply of oxygen in the tanks was constant in all the treatments as the weights in the various treatments was increasing thus causing a negative correlation between the dissolved oxygen concentration and weight gained.

Conclusion

All water quality parameters remained fairly non-significantly different within weeks and between treatments except for the fact that the Spearman rho’s test gave a negative correlation between dissolve oxygen and weight gained thus making dissolve oxygen to have a significant effect with the weight gained. This was merely due to the fact that as the fish increases in size and in age, their activity and metabolism increases thereby increasing the demand for dissolve oxygen in the plastic tanks while oxygen supply remained constant thus it will be always important to increase the dissolve oxygen supply as weight gained increases.

References

--
Post your comment

Share This Article

Article Usage

  • Total views: 71464
  • [From(publication date):
    September-2016 - Nov 24, 2024]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 70319
  • PDF downloads : 1145

http://sacs17.amberton.edu/

Top