Latest Cover

Online Office

Contact Us

Issue:ISSN 1000-7083
          CN 51-1193/Q
Director:Sichuan Association for Science and Technology
Sponsored by:Sichuan Society of Zoologists; Chengdu Giant Panda Breeding Research Foundation; Sichuan Association of Wildlife Conservation; Sichuan University
Address:College of Life Sciences, Sichuan University, No.29, Wangjiang Road, Chengdu, Sichuan Province, 610064, China
Tel:+86-28-85410485
Fax:+86-28-85410485
Email:scdwzz@vip.163.com & scdwzz001@163.com
Your Position :Home->Past Journals Catalog->2001 Vol.20 No.4

Effect of Artificial Feed in Breeding Gobiocypris rarus
Author of the article:WU Zhi-qiang1,2, WANG Jian-wei1, CHANG Jian-bo1, CAO Wen-xuan1
Author's Workplace:(1. Wuhan Institute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430072; 2. Department of Biological Science Engineering, Nanchang University, Nanchang 330047)
Key Words:artificial feed; breeding; Gobiocypris rarus
Abstract:
Four kinds of artificial feed A, B, C, D and tubificid worm were experimentally used for breeding Gobiocypris rarus. In lentic water tank for 240 days, the number of spawn time and spawn time and spawn interval of Hanyuan individual and Pengzhou individual of A were 15.25, 13.75 times and 15.98, 17.46 days which were near to 12 and 14.5 times and 20.86, 16.56 days of tubificid worm. While in circle water tank for 105 days, they were 12 times and 8.75 days of A but 21.5 times and 4.88 days of tubificid worm. The results showed that artivicial feed A cold substitute tubificid worm in both lentic or circle water tanks for breeding Gobiocypris rarus.
Besides, in lentic water tank, there were significant differences in individual spawn quantity per time (P<0.05) but no significant differences in hatch rate among above five feeds (P>0.05). Spawn quantity of A, B, and tubificid worm was near. In circle water tank, spawn quantity of A, B was less than that of bubifcid worm and the highest spawn quantity revealed in C. There were siginificant differences in hatch rate among A, B, C, and tubificid worm (P<0.05). Hatch rate of A was close to that of tubificid worm but hatch rate of B, C were lower
CopyRight©2020 Editorial Office of Sichuan Journal of Zoology