Barbonymus gonionotus (Silver barb): WelfareCheck|farm

Distribution

least concern

Information

Author: Caroline Marques Maia
Version: B | 1.3 (2022-07-29)

Please note: This part of the profile is currently being revised.

Reviewers: Jenny Volstorf, Pablo Arechavala-Lopez
Editor: Jenny Volstorf

Initial release: 2021-12-31
Version information:

Appearance: B
Last minor update: 2022-07-29

Cite as: »Marques Maia, Caroline. 2022. Barbonymus gonionotus (WelfareCheck | farm). In: fair-fish database, ed. fair-fish. World Wide Web electronic publication. Version B | 1.3. https://fair-fish-database.net.«

WelfareScore | farm

Barbonymus gonionotus

LiPoCe

Criteria

Home range

Depth range

Migration

Reproduction

Aggregation

Aggression

Substrate

Stress

Malformations

Slaughter

Legend

Condensed assessment of the species' likelihood and potential for good fish welfare in aquaculture, based on ethological findings for 10 crucial criteria.

Li = Likelihood that the individuals of the species experience good welfare under minimal farming conditions
Po = Potential of the individuals of the species to experience good welfare under high-standard farming conditions
Ce = Certainty of our findings in Likelihood and Potential

WelfareScore = Sum of criteria scoring "High" (max. 10)

High

Medium

Low

Unclear

No findings

General remarks

Barbonymus gonionotus is a freshwater fish that naturally inhabits Mekong and Chao Phraya basins, besides Malay Peninsula, Sumatra, and Java in Asia. This barb apparently prefers standing water habitats and occurs in midwater to bottom depths in rivers, streams, and floodplains. It is considered a short-distance migrant fish. B. gonionotus is an important barb species cultured in many Southeast Asian countries like Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam, which is also used as biological control for aquatic weeds in aquaculture systems like for Ctenopharyngodon idella. Some advantages of culturing this species include ease of reproduction, fast growth rate, utilisation of aquatic weed as food source, and utilising seasonal ponds for its grow-out culture. It is considered a fish of good taste and high consumer demand. Despite that, most basic wild information about this species is still missing as well as information about farming conditions for spawners and especially adults, possibly because this barb is commonly sold before reaching maturity. Moreover, further studies about stress response and malformations under farming conditions are required.

1 Home range

Many species traverse in a limited horizontal space (even if just for a certain period of time per year); the home range may be described as a species' understanding of its environment (i.e., its cognitive map) for the most important resources it needs access to.

What is the probability of providing the species' whole home range in captivity?

It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: LARVAE: hatching funnel: 0.3 m² (0.6 x 0.4 m) 1. FRY: concrete tanks: 50 m² (10 x 5 m) 2 3; ricefields with a peripheral trench: 550 m²and ~100 m², respectively 4; cages in ponds: 1 m² (1 x 1 m) 5.

JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: earthen ponds: 800 m² (40 x 20 m) 6, 400 m² (20 x 20 m) 7, 75-980 m² 8 9 10; ricefields with a peripheral trench: 550 m² and ~100 m², respectively 4 11; ricefield with a refuge canal: 166 m² 12; outdoor concrete tanks: 24 m² (4.9 x 4.9 m) 13.

ADULTS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: ponds 1 (for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS).

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: for ADULTS to become SPAWNERS → ADULTS. Breeding tanks: 6 m² (2 x 3 m) 1; round fiberglass breeding tanks: 2,500 L 14.

2 Depth range

Given the availability of resources (food, shelter) or the need to avoid predators, species spend their time within a certain depth range.

What is the probability of providing the species' whole depth range in captivity?

It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: FRY: concrete tanks: 1 m 2 3; ricefields: 0.03-0.2 m 15; peripheral trench in a ricefield: 1 m 4; cages in ponds: 1.2 m 5.

JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: earthen ponds: 1.5-1.9 m 12 8 9 6 10 16; ricefields: 0.03-0.4 m 12 15 11; peripheral trench in a ricefield: 1 m 4 11; refuge canal in a ricefield: 0.7 m 12; outdoor concrete tanks: 1.3 m 13.

ADULTS: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.

3 Migration

Some species undergo seasonal changes of environments for different purposes (feeding, spawning, etc.), and to move there, they migrate for more or less extensive distances.

What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the migrating or habitat-changing behaviour of the species?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

POTAMODROMOUS 17 18↶19.

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: FRY: concrete tanks: range 21.1-31.1 °C, fresh water 2 3; ricefields: 21-41.7 °C 15. For details of holding systems → crit. 1 and 2. LAB: FRY: better growth at 0 ppt than 5-10 ppt (freshwater fish) 20.

JUVENILES: WILD: 11-14 h PHOTOPERIOD 21 19, range 22-28 °C 19, fresh water 21 19. FARM: earthen ponds: range 15-34 °C 12 8 9 6 10 16, average 21.4-22 °C 22; ricefields: 21-41.7 °C 12 15; outdoor concrete tanks: 14.5-28.8 °C 13. For details of holding systems → crit. 1 and 2.

ADULTS: WILD: 11-14 h PHOTOPERIOD 21 19, range 22-28 °C 19, fresh water 21 19. FARM: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: WILD: migrate locally into small streams and canals and into flooded areas during the rainy season and back again during receding water 17. FARM: earthen ponds (storage): 29 °C 14. For details of holding systems → crit. 1.

4 Reproduction

A species reproduces at a certain age, season, and sex ratio and possibly involving courtship rituals.

What is the probability of the species reproducing naturally in captivity without manipulation of these circumstances?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

WILD: opportunistic spawner, spawning from March-April to June-September (mainly in spring) 23 17 1 or all year round 17 20. FARM: can breed naturally in captivity in ponds and tanks, but spawning is induced 1. Salmon Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone analogue and Domperidone to induce ovulation 24 25; Carp Pituitary Homogenate 23, hypophysation (pituitary gland) 1, combination of Domperidone or – less successfully – also Sulpiride or Metoclopramide with Luteinising Hormone Releasing Hormone Analog to induce spawning 14. Stripping 1, no stripping 14.

5 Aggregation

Species differ in the way they co-exist with conspecifics or other species from being solitary to aggregating unstructured, casually roaming in shoals or closely coordinating in schools of varying densities.

What is the probability of providing farming conditions that are compatible with the aggregation behaviour of the species?

It is unclear for minimal and high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: FRY: concrete tanks: 25-75 IND/m², with a better growth at 25 IND/m², especially when aeration is provided, which also improved the survival 3; 2.5-10 IND/m² in polyculture with 3 other carp species of overall density of 10-40 IND/m², with better growth (and better survival for Labeo rohita) at the lowest densities 2. Ricefields: 0.4-1.6 IND/m² in polyculture with Cyprinus carpio and Oreochromis niloticus of overall density of 2 IND/m², with better growth at lower own densities, but not for O. niloticus 15. Cages in ponds: 300 IND/m³ 5. LAB: FRY: glass aquaria: better growth and survival at 3-5 IND/L than 8 IND/L 20.

JUVENILES: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: earthen ponds: 0.9-7 IND/m² 12 10; 0.1-0.3 IND/m²in polyculture with 2-4 other carp species of overall density of 0.5-1.3 IND/m² 8 9 6 16; 1 IND/m² in polyculture with Mystus cavasius and Hypophthalmichthys molitrix of overall density of 3.2 IND/m²22. Ricefields: 7 IND/m² 12;0.5 IND/m² in polyculture with O. niloticus of overall density of 0.8 IND/m²15; 0.2-1.6 IND/m² in polycultures with several different species of overall densities of 0.5-2.5 IND/m²– decreased growth with increased own biomass or of O. niloticus, but not with increased biomass of C. carpio 11. Outdoor concrete tanks: 1.5 IND/m²in monoculture orin polyculture with male O. niloticus or 1-3 other carp species of overall density of 1.7-2 IND/m², with lower growth in polycultures with just C. carpio and better growth in monoculture or with O. niloticus 13.

ADULTS: WILD and FARM: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: earthen ponds (storage): 1 kg/4 m²14.

6 Aggression

There is a range of adverse reactions in species, spanning from being relatively indifferent towards others to defending valuable resources (e.g., food, territory, mates) to actively attacking opponents.

What is the probability of the species being non-aggressive and non-territorial in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

FRY: FARM: no aggression reported in polyculture with other carp species, but intraspecific competition is mentioned as a possibility 2; no aggression reported in polycultures with C. carpio and O. niloticus, but intraspecific competition is suspected to explain reduced growth at high densities 15. LAB: intraspecific competition for food possibly caused poor growth at higher densities 20.

JUVENILES: FARM: no aggression reported in polyculture with O. niloticus 15 13 or other carp species 8 6 13 16 or M. cavasius and H. molitrix 22 or combination of species 11. Suspected intraspecific and interspecific competition with other carp species 8 9 6 or O. niloticus 11 which might be improved by adding fertiliser and manure and decreasing stocking density 11.

ADULTS: FARM: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: FARM: no aggression reported 23 24 25 14 1.

7 Substrate

Depending on where in the water column the species lives, it differs in interacting with or relying on various substrates for feeding or covering purposes (e.g., plants, rocks and stones, sand and mud, turbidity).

What is the probability of providing the species' substrate and shelter needs in captivity?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is high for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a medium amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: FRY: concrete tanks: 0.2 m of soil base 2 3 and gill nets as a cover to deter predation from birds 3; ricefields: fence of mosquito screen in the surrounding to deter predators 4. Bamboo poles (to allow growth of periphyton) in cages did not increase growth, probably because phytoplankton already satisfied nutritional needs 5. For details of holding systems → crit. 1 and 2.

JUVENILES: WILD: river with many plants like liverworts 21. FARM: earthen ponds: presence of macrophytes 12, 0.1-0.2 m²stripped bamboo mats/m² fixed with bamboo poles as periphyton substrate 16, Secchi disk 0.2-0.4 m 8 22; ricefields: presence of macrophytes 12, fence of mosquito screen in the surrounding to deter predators 4; outdoor concrete tanks: Secchi disk 0.3-1.1 m 13. For details of holding systems → crit. 1 and 2.

ADULTS: WILD: river with many plants like liverworts 21. FARM: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: WILD: no data found yet. FARM: for details of holding systems → crit. 1.

8 Stress

Farming involves subjecting the species to diverse procedures (e.g., handling, air exposure, short-term confinement, short-term crowding, transport), sudden parameter changes or repeated disturbances (e.g., husbandry, size-grading).

What is the probability of the species not being stressed?

There are no findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: no data found yet.

ADULTS: no data found yet.

SPAWNERS: no data found yet.

9 Malformations

Deformities that – in contrast to diseases – are commonly irreversible may indicate sub-optimal rearing conditions (e.g., mechanical stress during hatching and rearing, environmental factors unless mentioned in crit. 3, aquatic pollutants, nutritional deficiencies) or a general incompatibility of the species with being farmed.

What is the probability of the species being malformed rarely?

There are no findings for minimal and high-standard farming conditions.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

LARVAE and FRY: no data found yet.

JUVENILES: no data found yet.

ADULTS: no data found yet.

10 Slaughter

The cornerstone for a humane treatment is that slaughter a) immediately follows stunning (i.e., while the individual is unconscious), b) happens according to a clear and reproducible set of instructions verified under farming conditions, and c) avoids pain, suffering, and distress.

What is the probability of the species being slaughtered according to a humane slaughter protocol?

It is low for minimal farming conditions. It is medium for high-standard farming conditions. Our conclusion is based on a low amount of evidence.

Likelihood score-li

Potential

Certainty

Common slaughter method: commonly sold live or fresh locally 26, so probably asphyxia. High-standard slaughter method: for the related C. carpio, electrical plus percussive stunning (followed by evisceration, gill cut or destruction of the heart) 27 or immersion in clove oil (followed by percussive killing 28). Further research needed for a specific protocol and to determine whether this applies to B. gonionotus as well.

Side note: Domestication

Teletchea and Fontaine introduced 5 domestication levels illustrating how far species are from having their life cycle closed in captivity without wild input, how long they have been reared in captivity, and whether breeding programmes are in place.

What is the species’ domestication level?

DOMESTICATION LEVEL 5 29, fully domesticated.

Side note: Forage fish in the feed

450-1,000 milliard wild-caught fishes end up being processed into fish meal and fish oil each year which contributes to overfishing and represents enormous suffering. There is a broad range of feeding types within species reared in captivity.

To what degree may fish meal and fish oil based on forage fish be replaced by non-forage fishery components (e.g., poultry blood meal) or sustainable sources (e.g., soybean cake)?

All age classes: WILD: omnivorous 30↶19 20 21, feeding both on plant matter and invertebrates 30↶19, but tend to be more herbivorous 4 20 21. FARM: feed usually without fish meal or fish oil 31↶22 32↶22 8 22 9. Fish meal may be not 33 or partly* replaced by sustainable sources 34 35 36. LAB: fish oil may be not replaced by sustainable sources 37.

^{partly = <51% – mostly = 51-99% – completely = 100%}

Side note: Commercial relevance

How much is this species farmed annually?

Glossary

ADULTS = mature individuals
DOMESTICATION LEVEL 5 = selective breeding programmes are used focusing on specific goals 29
FARM = setting in farming environment or under conditions simulating farming environment in terms of size of facility or number of individuals
FRY = larvae from external feeding on
IND = individuals
JUVENILES = fully developed but immature individuals
LAB = setting in laboratory environment
LARVAE = hatching to mouth opening
PHOTOPERIOD = duration of daylight
POTAMODROMOUS = migrating within fresh water
SPAWNERS = adults during the spawning season; in farms: adults that are kept as broodstock
WILD = setting in the wild

Bibliography

1 Bhuiyan, A. S., M. K. Islam, and T. Zaman. 2006. Induced spawning of Puntius Gonionotus (Bleeker). Journal of Bio-Science 14: 121–125. https://doi.org/10.3329/jbs.v14i0.455.
2 Jena, J., P. C. Das, G. Mitra, B. Patro, D. Mohanta, and B. Mishra. 2011. Evaluation of growth performance of Labeo fimbriatus (Bloch), Labeo gonius (Hamilton) and Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker) in polyculture with Labeo rohita (Hamilton) during fingerlings rearing at varied densities. Aquaculture 319: 493–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.07.028.
3 Das, P. C., J. Jena, B. Mishra, and B. K. Pati. 2012. Impact of Aeration on the Growth Performance of Silver Barb, Puntius gonionotus, during Fingerling Rearing. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 43: 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-7345.2011.00541.x.
4 Rothuis, A J, L T Duong, C J J Richter, and F Ollevier. 1998. Polyculture of silver barb, Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker), Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.), and common carp, Cyprinus carpio L., in Vietnamese ricefields: feeding ecology and impact on rice and ricefield environment. Aquaculture Research 29: 649–660. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.1998.00255.x.
5 Jiwyam, Wirat. 2014. Growth and Feeding Behaviour of Barbonymus gonionotus (Bleeker,1850) and Hypsibarbus wetmorei (Smith, 1931) in Added-Substrate and No-Added-Substrate Cages. Journal of Fisheries and Environment 38: 28–37.
6 Jena, J., P. Chandra Das, S. Mondal, and R. Das. 2007. Compatibility of silver barb Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker) with Indian major carps in a grow-out polyculture. Aquaculture Research 38: 1061–1065. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2007.01768.x.
7 Sahu, P. K., J. Jena, and P. C. Das. 2021. Periphyton based grow-out farming of Indian major carps with Labeo calbasu (Hamilton) and Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker) for better water quality and enhanced fish production. Aquaculture 533: 736118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736118.
8 Mahean Haque, S., M. A. Wahab, M. I. Wahid, and M. S. Haq. 1998. Impacts of Thai silver barb (Puntius gonionotus Bleeker) inclusion in the polyculture of carps. Bangladesh Journal of Fisheries Research 2: 15–22.
9 Azim, M. E., M. A. Wahab, A. H. M. Kamal, and Z. F. Ahmed. 2004. Feeding Relations of Silver Barb Barbodes gonionotus (Bleeker) with Major Indian and Common Carp and Its Effect on Fish Production in a Polyculture System. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 35: 100–108.
10 Mohanta, K. N., S. N. Mohanty, J. Jena, and N. P. Sahu. 2008. Effect of three different oil cake-based diets on pond production performance of silver barb, Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker). Aquaculture Research 39: 1131–1140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2109.2008.01974.x.
11 Vromant, N., C. Q. Nam, and F. Ollevier. 2002. Growth performance of Barbodes gonionotus (Bleeker) in intensively cultivated rice fields. Aquaculture 212: 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0044-8486(02)00005-4.
12 Haroon, A. K. Y., and K. A. Pittman. 1997. Diel feeding pattern and ration of two sizes of silver barb, Puntius gonionotus Bleeker, in a nursery pond and ricefield. Aquaculture Research 28: 847–858. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.1997.00890.x.
13 Chaudhary, S. N., M. K. Shrestha, D. K. Jha, and N. P. Pandit. 2008. Growth Performance of Silver Barb (Puntius gonionotus) in Mono and Polyculture Systems. Our Nature 6: 38–46. https://doi.org/10.3126/on.v6i1.1653.
14 Sukumasavin, N., S. Sakulthong, and R. Sangthong. 2000. A Comparison of the Potency of Dopamine Antagonists on Spawning Induction in Thai Carp (Puntius gonionotus Bleeker). Agriculture and Natural Resources 34: 240–247.
15 Rothuis, A J, C Q Nam, C J J Richter, and F Ollevier. 1998. Polyculture of silver barb, Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker), Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus (L.), and common carp, Cyprinus carpio L., in Vietnamese ricefields: fish production parameters. Aquaculture Research 29: 661–668. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2109.1998.00256.x.
16 NOT FOUND
17 Sokheng, Chan, Chhuon Kim Chhea, Sintavong Viravong, Kongpeng Bouakhamvongsa, Ubolratana Suntornratana, Noppanum Yoorong, Nguyen Than Tung, Tran Quoc Bao, Anders F. Poulsen, and John Valbo Jorgensen. 1999. Fish migrations and spawning habits in the Mekong mainstream: a survey using local knowledge (basin-wide). Assessment of Mekong Fisheries: Fish Migrations and Spawning and the Impact of Water Management Project (AMFC). Vientiane, Lao PDR: Mekong River Commission.
18 Riede, K. 2004. Global register of migratory species - from global to regional scales. Final report of the R&D Projekt 808 05 081. Bonn, Germany: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.
19 Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2021. Barbonymus gonionotus, Silver barb: fisheries, aquaculture, aquarium. World Wide Web electronic publication. FishBase.
20 Faizul, M. I. M., and A. Christianus. 2013. Salinity and Stocking Density Effect on Growth and Survival of Barbodes gonionotus (Bleeker, 1850) Fry. Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 8: 419–424. https://doi.org/10.3923/jfas.2013.419.424.
21 Nurfadillah, N., D. Desrita, B. A. Phonna, and C. N. Defira. 2019. Analysis of food habits and length-weight relationships (LWRs) of java barb (Barbonymus gonionotus Bleeker) in Reubee River, Pidie, Aceh. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 348: 012081. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/348/1/012081.
22 Anwar Hossain, M., A. H. M. Kohinoor, and M. G. Hussain. 1998. Polyculture of gulsha (Mystus cavasius Ham.) with rajpunti (Puntius gonionotus Bleeker) and silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix Val.) in earthen ponds. Bangladesh Journal of Fisheries Research 2: 9–14.
23 Hoque, M. T., A. Taweb, and A. Ahmed. 1991. Breeding biology of tawes (Puntius gonionotus Bleelcer). Indian Journal of Fisheries 38: 26–29.
24 Sukumasavin, N., and W. Leelapatra. 1992. Effect of [D-Arg 6, Trp 7, Leu 8, Pro 9, NHET] gonadotropin releasing hormone and domperidone on releasing gonadotropin hormone and spawning of Puntius gonionotus Bleeker. Warasan Kan Pramong.
25 Sukumasavin, N., W. Leelapatra, E. McLean, and E. M. Donaldson. 1992. Orally induced spawning of Thai carp (Puntius gonionotus, Bleeker) following co-administration of des Gly10 (D-Arg6) sGnRH ethylamide and domperidone. Journal of Fish Biology 40: 477–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.1992.tb02595.x.
26 Rainboth, W. J. 1996. Fishes of the Cambodian Mekong. Rome: Food & Agriculture Org.
27 Retter, Karina, Karl-Heinz Esser, Matthias Lüpke, John Hellmann, Dieter Steinhagen, and Verena Jung-Schroers. 2018. Stunning of common carp: Results from a field and a laboratory study. BMC Veterinary Research 14: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917-018-1530-0.
28 Rahmanifarah, K., B. Shabanpour, and A. Sattari. 2011. Effects of Clove Oil on Behavior and Flesh Quality of Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio L.) in Comparison with Pre-slaughter CO2 Stunning, Chilling and Asphyxia. Turkish Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 11: 139–147.
29 Teletchea, Fabrice, and Pascal Fontaine. 2012. Levels of domestication in fish: implications for the sustainable future of aquaculture. Fish and Fisheries 15: 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12006.
30 Mohsin, A.K.M., and M.A. Ambak. 1983. Freshwater fishes of Peninsular Malaysia. Malaysia: Penerbit Universiti Pertanian Malaysia.
31 Hussain, M. G., M. Akhteruzzaman, K. A. T. Karim, and M. S. Shah. 1989. Semi-intensive culture of P. gonionotus. Bangladesh Journal of Fisheries 12: 45–52.
32 Kohinoor, A.H.M., M. Akhteruzzaman, and M.S. Shah. 1993. Production of Puntius gonionotus (Bleeker) in ponds. Bangladesh Journal of Zoology 21: 77–83.
33 Jahan, Halima, Mst Arzu Pervin, Rabeya Akter, and Zakir Hossain. 2019. Effects of soybean meal on new muscle generation and growth of silver barb, Barbonymus gonionotus. International Journal of Agriculture Environment and Bioresearch 04: 102–110. https://doi.org/10.35410/IJAEB.2019.102110.
34 Das, Mousumi, Ferdous Ibn Rahim, and Md Amzad Hossain. 2018. Evaluation of Fresh Azolla pinnata as a Low-Cost Supplemental Feed for Thai Silver Barb Barbonymus gonionotus. Fishes 3: 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/fishes3010015.
35 Jahan, Halima, Noore Safa Ema, Md Saddam Hossain, Mst Arzu Pervin, Rabeya Akter, and Zakir Hossain. 2020. Growth performance study of Silver barb (Barbonymus gonionotus) by replacing fishmeal with soybean meal in the diet. Asian Journal of Medical and Biological Research 6: 149–154. Bangladesh. https://doi.org/10.3329/ajmbr.v6i2.48045.
36 Jahan, Halima, Israt Jahan Tumpa, Wafaa A. Qasem, Mohammad Moniruzzaman, Mst Arzu Pervin, Rabeya Akter, Abdelwahab Omri, Taesun Min, and Zakir Hossain. 2021. Evaluation of the Partial Replacement of Dietary Fish Meal With Fermented or Untreated Soybean Meal in Juvenile Silver Barb, Barbonymus gonionotus. Frontiers in Nutrition 8: 733402. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2021.733402.
37 Nayak, M., A. Saha, A. Pradhan, M. Samanta, and S. S. Giri. 2017. Dietary fish oil replacement by linseed oil: Effect on growth, nutrient utilization, tissue fatty acid composition and desaturase gene expression in silver barb (Puntius gonionotus) fingerlings. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 205: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpb.2016.11.009.

❮

❯

1 / 1

contents