The system of fish-

livestock/poultry integration
1. The principle of fish farming with
animal manure

1.1 Food web in natural fishpond

1.11 Autotrophic food chain
1.12 Heterotrophic food chain
 Food web in natural fish pond
Autotrophic Heterotrophic
food chain food chain
Phytoplankton
Autotrophic bacteria Inorganic nutrients
Aquatic plant

Microbe
Zooplankton
(heterotrophic bacteria)
Benthos
zoogloea

Organic detritus
Corpse and excretes

Filtering feeder Fish Omnivorous

1.2 The characters of animal manure

a. Animal manure contains a lot of undigested

feed (about 1/3 of total feed)
b. Mix with a lot of spilt feed (chicken manure
is about 30%)
c. Manure contains a lot of organic and
inorganic nutrients
Table 1. The nutrients content of four animal manures
Component Chicken Duck Pig Cattle
manure manure manure manure
Moisture 27.76 74.45 75.05 80.30
content
Crude protein 25.06 19.87 18.13 13.40

Crude fat 8.52 9.19 8.90 7.90

Crude Fiber 10.64 7.75 11.93 16.75

Total nitrogen 1.56 0.65 0.50 0.36

Total 1.58 0.94 0.38 0.32

phosphorus
Total 0.96 0.48 0.46 0.20
potassium
 Table 2. The equivalent weight of animal manure
to inorganic fertilizer
The equivalent weight of inorganic fertilizer per 1000 kg manure
Manure
(NH4)2SO4 Ca(H2PO4)2 K2SO4
Pig manure 30.5 12.7 5.6
Pig urea 15 7.2 14
Cattle manure 15 13.8 2
Cattle urea 40 - 8
Goat manure 37.5 33 6
Goat urea 70 27.5 44
Chicken manure 81.5 85.5 17
Duck manure 50 22 12
Goose manure 27.5 30 19
Pig-shed manure 22.5 10.5 12
Cattle-shed manure 17 8.7 8
Rabbit manure 88.5 73.9 38.4
Silkworm feces 72.5 13.8 22
1.3 The function of animal manure
in fish pond
 Manured
The function of animal manure in fishpond pond

Animal manure

Phytoplankton
Inorganic nutrients Inorganic nutrients
Autotrophic bacteria
Aquatic plant

Microbe
Zooplankton (heterotrophic bacteria) microbes
benthos zoogloea

Organic detritus
Corpse and excretes Organic matter

Filtering feeder Fish Omnivorous

2. The effect of animal manure
on fish farming
 Table 3. Water quality of different manured pond
Factor Chicken Duck Pig Cattle Control
(mg/L) Manured Pond Manured Pond Manured Pond Manured Pond Pond
DO. 8.6 9.6 8.8 11.3 12.4

B.O.D 5.8 4.8 4.1 4.2 1.9

PH 6.8-10 6.5-10.5 6.0-9.5 6.9-10.4 9-11.5

Transparency (cm) 44.7 36.5 47.3 41.7 79.4

Suspension matter 128 90.8 80.9 89.2 57.1

Detritus 71.0 62 52.6 64.4 43.3

Phytoplankton 38.7 22.6 20.6 19.2 12.8

Zooplankton 18.5 6.3 7.8 5.6 1.6

Bacteria 11.5 6.3 4.2 5.2 1.7

(x106ind./L)
Total nitrogen 7.8 4.2 4.2 3.9 3.4

NH4+-N 2.02 0.86 0.80 0.73 0.59

NO-3-N 0.172 0.109 0.127 0.125 0.024

NO2--N 0.083 0.026 0.031 0.024 0.028

PO3-4-P 0.434 0.094 0.067 0.024 0.019

 Table 4. The effect of different animal manure
on fish yield
Item Chicken Duck Pig Cattle Control
Manured Manured Manured Manured Pond
Pond Pond Pond Pond

MCR 2.28 2.32 2.17 3.15 0

Body 3.6 3.2 2.9 2.5 0.86

weight
increase
Net fish 129.8 106.8 100.9 70.9 -6.3
yield
(kg/mu)

*Production from culture period of 115 days

The effects of animal manure on the growth of
different species of fish

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
chicken
1
duck
0.8
pig
0.6
cattle
0.4
control
0.2
0
-0.2
SC BH CC CrC
 Conclusion
a. Fish yield is close positive related to the total input of
crude protein of animal manure. Input 1 kg of manure
protein can converse into 0.41 kg of fish protein.
b. Fish yield does not closely related to the quantity of
crude fat and total input of energy.
c. Different species of fish shows different growing rate
by the effects of different animal manure.
d. Fish yield affect by stocking model (species and
weight) and culture period. Usually at a culture period
126-330 days, the fish yield can reach 18-32 kg/ha/day.
 3. Manure efficiency

Table 5. The efficiency of animal manure on fish production

Manure weight needed for
Type of manure Fish produce from one producing 1 kg of fish (kg)
head of animal (kg)
Dry weight Wet weight

Chicken 2 2.28-5.45 4-9

Duck 3 2.23-5.78 10-15

(Kaki-Campbell)
Goose 4 3.48-5.73 15-25
(Taihu goose)
Pig 40 2.27-5.77 10-24
(8 months)
Cow 450 3.15-6.24 21-41
(450-500kg)
4. The main types of fish-
livestock/poultry
a. Fish-duck/goose integration
b. Fish-chicken integration
c. Fish-pig integration
d. Fish-cattle integration
 4.1 Fish-duck integration
4.11 The beneficial interaction
a. Duck can eradicate many fry and fingerlings of
predators for fish, which are available natural food
organism for duck but detrimental to fish.
b. Duck dropping go directly into the fishpond,
providing nutrient material of C, N, and P; and
stimulating the growth of natural food organisms.
c. Duck feeds are fully utilized in fish-duck integration
(Duck lose 10-20% of their feed, which can be
consumed by fish directly).
d. Fish-duck integration also promotes the recycling of
nutrients in the pond ecosystem.
e. Ducks also act as pond aerators.
4.11 The beneficial interaction

f. Fishponds provide ducks with an excellent, clean

and essentially disease-free environment.
g. Duck raising in fishponds can reduce the demand
for protein in duck feeds.(13-14%, 16-20%)
h. The growing rate, feed efficiency, and vitality and
cleanliness of the eiderdown (feather) and skin of
the ducks raised in fishponds were better.
4.12 Duck raising method

4.121 The "grazing' type

4.122 Centralized enclosure
4.123 Partial enclosure in fishpond
 4.122 Centralized enclosure

Duckshed 1 Duckshed 2
door
4 inds/m2

Dry run Dry run

Wet run Wet run

To fish pond sluice Manure ditch

4.123 Duck raised in the pond

Dry run Wet

run

50 cm
50 cm

Duck
shed Fence Fishpon
or net d

Density: 4.5inds./m2 for dry run

3-4inds./m2 for dry run
 Table 6. Comparison of duck raising in fishpond
and duck pen

Fishpond Duck pen

Item
Average Average
1977 1978 1977 1978

Food conversion ratio 2.73 2.55 2.64 3.74 4.13 3.93

(FCR)
Increment of 2,162 1,780 1,935 1,962 1,638 1,801
body weight (g/duck)
Survival rate (%) 96.7 99.0 97.8 95.0 93.7 94.3

Daily fish output 39.1 33.9 36.5 43.4 29.5 36.5

4.2 Fish-chicken integration

Feed
container
The sun
Water
Facing container
sunshine
Egg collection
plate

Fishpond
Manure
0.5 m
collection plate
1.6 m

Pond dike 0.3 m

2.4 m
Chicken shed on the pond dike (show hencoop)
4.3 Fish-Pig Integration

4.31 The simple pigsty constructed

on the pond dyke or over the
water surface
4.32 In a centralized hog house
 Layout of pigsty on the pond dike

Material
Material
House
house
Pig shed
Walking
road

Pond dike

fishpond
fishpond
Manure fishpond Manure
tank ditch
4.4 Fish-cattle Integration
•Manure available is most stable and reliable (a cow
with body weight 460 kg can annually
produce 13,600 kg feces and 9,000 kg urine).
•The leftover of cow feed (grass 3,000 kg) can be
reused by fish. And matted grass from
cowshed can be used as compost for fishpond.
•Available milk (4,500kg) and fish (500kg) to market
•Cow manure can be dispersed by hand, flushing, boat
or spray nozzle .
Layout of simple cattle shed

Cattle shed Cattle shed

6m

Walking area

fishpond
5. Allocation of animal number to fishpond
N=(Y1-RY2)×C÷M
Where,
• N---The number of animal meet for per unit of fishpond
(head/ha)
• Y1---The net fish yield of omnivorous and filtering feeder
that plan to produce (kg/ha)
• Y2---The plan gross fish yield of grain feeder (kg/ha)
• R---The ratio of net weight of omnivorous and filtering
feeder which produce from the fertilizer result from the
excreta and feces of grain-feeder, to the gross weight of
grain-feeder. (21-34%)
• C---Manure conversion rate (MCR)
• M---Manure quantity of one head animal in one year or one
production period (kg/head), the urine can be calculate as
1/7-1/5 of manure.
 N=(Y1-RY2)×C÷M

If there are two kinds manure are used, one kind

of manure should be chose as standard manure,
then use MCR to calculate the other one according
the equation

Mb= Ma ×Cb ÷ Ca
ex. 1,000 ×10 ÷4 = 2,500 (kg)
 N=(Y1-RY2)×C÷M
• If the value inside the bracket (Y1-RY2) = 0;
it means the stocking ratio of plan net yield of
omnivorous and filtering feeder to plan gross
yield of grain feeder is optimum.
• If the value inside the bracket (Y1-RY2) < 0;
it means the the plan net yield of omnivorous
and filtering feeder is less than the weight
that can produce by the fertilizer of feces of
grain feeder.
 Example 1.
A fish farm has fishpond area of 10 ha.
Plan to produce total net yield of 6,000 kg/ha of
fish; and grain feeder is 2,250 kg (stocking
fingerling 450 kg/ha). R is 30%. Duck manure
production is 50 kg/head/year. MCR of duck
manure is 10. So, how many duck should be
raised to meet the fertilizer demand of the farm?
 Answer:
• Y1= 6000-2250 = 3,750 (kg/ha)
• Y2= 2250+450 = 2,700 (kg/ha)
• R=30%
• C=10
• M=50 kg/head
• The number of animal needed by 1 ha of fishpond
was calculated as following:
N=(Y1-RY2)×C÷M
• N=(3,750-2,700×30%)×10÷50
• N=2,940×10÷50 = 580 (head)

• Total duck need is equal to 580×10=5,800 (head)

Table 7. Allocation of fish-poultry/livestock integration

Animal Egg- Khaki- Goose Meat Milk

laying Campbell pig cow
Chicken duck

Number 1350- 900-1025 750 60 6

(head 1500
/ha)

•Net yield of 6,000 kg/ha (omnivorous and filer feeder account for 60-75%,
others 25-40%);
•If only filtering feeder and omnivorous fish are stocked (omnivorous account
for 1/4 -1/3), the amount will be increase 20%
 6. The stocking models of fish-
livestock/poultry integration

Table 8. The proportion of polycultured species

Silver carp Bighead Common carp Crucian carp Blunt snout
carp and Tilapia bream
65% 20% 7% 3% 5%
 Table 9. Stocking models for main species of silver carp and

bighead carp (Net fish yield 250 kg/mu or 3,750 kg/ha)

Body
Stocking Harvest weight
Survival increase
Species rate
(%) Gross Net
Size Number Weight Size Amount
yield yield
(cm) (ind.) (kg) (kg/ind.) (ind.)
(kg/mu) (kg/mu)

SC 13.3 400 9 90 0.5 360 180 171 20

BC 13.3 80 1.9 90 0.6 72 43.2 41.3 22

BSB 11.5 60 0.8 90 0.17 54 9.2 8.4 11

GC 13.3 50 1.55 50 0.75 25 18.75 17.2 12

CC 16.5 30 0.75 90 0.5 27 13.5 12.75 18

Total 620 14 84 538 264.65 250.62 19

 Table 10. Stocking models for main species of silver
carp and bighead carp
(Net fish yield 400 kg/mu or 6,000 kg/ha)
Stocking Harvest Body
Survival weight
Species rate
Size Number Weight (%) Size Amount
Gross
Net yield increase
yield
(cm) (ind.) (kg) (kg/ind.) (ind.) (kg/mu)
(kg/mu)

SC 13.3 600 12 90 0.5 540 270 258 22

BC 13.3 120 2.35 90 0.6 108 64.8 62.46 27

GC 13.3 50 1.55 50 0.75 25 18.75 17.2 12

BSB 11.5 60 0.8 90 0.17 54 9.2 8.4 11

CC 16.5 30 0.75 90 0.5 27 13.5 12.75 18

CrC 6.6 100 0.5 80 >0.1 80 10 9.5 20

Tilapia 4 500 0.5 80 5 50 40.5 100

Total 1460 18.46 436.25 417.8 24

 Table 11. Stocking models for main species of silver
carp and bighead carp
(Net fish yield 500 kg/mu or 7,500 kg/ha)
Stocking Harvest (kg/mu) Body weight
Survival increase
Species Time rate
Size Number Weight (%) Size Gross Net
(kg/cm) (ind.) (kg) (kg/ind.) yield yield

Feb. 0.2 300 60 98 >0.5 267.5 225 4

SC May-Aug 0.05 300 15 0.2 32.5

Feb. 0.2-0.25 60 12.5 98 >0.5 52.5 49.5 4.2

BC May-Aug 0.05 60 3 0.2-0.25 12.5

Feb. 0.125 100 12.5 80 0.75 60 47.5 4.8

GGC

Feb. 13 50 1 80 0.25 10 9 10
BSB

Feb. 11.5 50 1 80 >0.5 25 24 25

CC

Feb. 11.5 1000 14 80 >0.1 100 86 7.1

Silver
Xenocypris
Feb. 6.6 100 0.5 80 >0.1 10 9.5 20
CrC

Feb. 4 500 0.5 80 50 49.5 100

Tilapia

2520 120 620 500 5.2

Total
7. Manure application method

7.1 Fresh and fermented manure

The advantages of using fermented manure

– Enhance the concentration of inorganic element
after fermentation.
– Reduce the consumption of dissolved oxygen from
the decomposition of animal manure in pond water.
– Some of parasite inside the manure can be killed
after fermentation.
Table 12. Chemical parameters in manured pond water
Parameter Fermented manure Fresh manure
PH 7.7 7.6
Dissolved oxygen 7.12 6.07
Total Nitrogen 3.2 3.09
NH4+-N 1.12 0.95
NO2--N 0.0039 0.0022
NO3--N 0.030 0.029
PO43--P 0.041 0.039
Comparison of fish yield in fresh manure pond
and fermented manure pond

70
60
50
40 chemical
30 fermented
fresh manure
20
10
0
exp.1 exp. 2
Table 13. Analysis of main component of pig manure
Item Fermented manure Fresh manure

Total solid matter (%) 20.50 30.87

Organic carbon (%) 29.77 37.40

Crude protein (%) 9.68 9.50

Crude fat (%) 5.41 10.29

Crude fiber (%) 13.14 16.88

Total nitrogen (mg/L) 1.55 1.52

Total phosphorus (mg/L) 4.20 3.18

 Conclusion
a. The production of silver carp is higher in fermented manured
pond (but no significant difference) due to the concentration
of inorganic nutrient salt is higher.
b. The production of omnivorous fish is much higher (significant
different) in fresh-manured pond due to higher content of
organic matter. (60-70%; 40%)
c. Compared to fresh manure, fermented manure lose organic
matter 27.93% (chicken manure higher than this), but
ammonium concentration too high to the pond.
d. The dissolved oxygen in fresh manure pond is lower (this
parameter should be consider when loading the fresh manure
into the pond).
e. It does not increase the frequency of disease appearance in
fresh-manured pond than the fermented one.
7.2 Manure application rate

7.21 Base manure

The function is to provide a strong

stimulus to pond productivity. The
loading rate is mainly depended on the
type of manure and the depth of pond silt
 Base manure application
according to the depth of pond silt
• If the pond silt layer is about 5-10 cm, the
quantity of base manure application
weight is ranged from 500 to 5,000 kg/ha.
• If the pond silt layer is deeper than 10 cm, the
loading rate should be reduced.
• If the pond silt layer is deeper than 15cm, and
which with high content of organic matter,
base manure may not need.
 Table 14. The application weight of different
manure as base manure
(the depth of pond silt less than 10 cm)

Type of manure Chicken Duck Pig Cattle

manure manure manure manure

Application
weight (kg/ha 600-750 1,800- 3,000- 4,500-
wet weight) 2,250 3,750 6,000
7.22 Routine manure (additional manure)
• Routine manure is used to sustain algal
productivity, and manure application rate is adjusted
to maintain a balance between high productivity and
acceptable water quantity.
• Daily manure application rate is usually about 20-
25% (dry weight) of stock weight and usually
increase 20% by month, but it should be adjusted
according to:
– The depth of pond water
– Water transparency (25-35 cm)
– Water color
– Stock weight
– Water temperature
7.3 Application frequency

• Manure application frequency---refer to the

frequency of routine manure application, which
can range from daily to monthly.
• The frequency of manure application is primarily
determined by the rate of manure decomposition
in the fishpond. Which in turn depends on water
quality and the types of manure. It is reported
that fish pond without aeration are capable of
mineralizing up to 100-200 kg/ha/day of manure
(dry weight).
Table 15. The effect of manure application frequency
on fish yield

Frequency
(Total manure input 10-30 5-7 1
are the same) days days day

Daily output of fish

(kg/ha.day) 1.0-1.1 4.8-5.8 8.0-9.0
Table 16. Efficiency of daily manure application
frequency (compare to weekly)
BOD Bacterial Ammonium Fish Equivalent dry Growing
digest ability output manure weight period

47% 36% 45% 35% 4,700 kg 200 days

 Daily change of ammonia

ammonia (mg/L) 2
1 day
1 5 days
7days
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
day

Daily change of phosphate

0.6
phosphate

1 day
(mg/L)

0.4
5 days
0.2 7days
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
day
 The difference of dissolved oxygen
compared to daily manuring

4
dissolved
oxygen
(mg/L)

2 5 days
0 7days

-2 0 2 4 6 8
days after manuring
 The concentration of chlorophyll-a in
daily manured pond

chlorophyll-a
(mg/m3)
200
100
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
days after manuring

The difference of chlorophyll-

acompared to daily manured pond
chlorophyll-a

100
(mg/m3)

5 days
0 7days
0 2 4 6 8
-100
days after manuring
 Conclusion:

Chicken and duck manure 1-2 days >25oC 1 day

Pig and cattle manure 2-3 days > 25oC 1-2 days
 7.4 Application method

•Directly flush into fishpond

•Pile on the corner of the pond
•Diluted with water and spray over pond surface
•Disperse by using boat
8. The effects of animal manure on
fish disease and fish food safety
 Table 17. The diseases and pathogens occur
in polycultured fishpond

Bacteria disease Pathogen

•White skin disease •Aeromonas sp.

•Hemorrhagic septicaemia •Pseudomonas sp.
•Furunculosis
•Stigmatosis
•Lepidorthosis
Table 16. The pathogen bacteria cause human
acute enteritis
•Salmonella
•Shigella
•Campylobacter jejuni
•Yersinia enterocolitica
The result from research work
• The bacteria pathogen of common fish disease occurred
fewer in manure, but a little higher in the pond water
non-manured pond.
• Exception of duck manure contain with group E
salmonella.There is no human intestinal pathogen bacteria
(HIPB) found in other kinds of manure, fish viscera and
fish body surface.
• The amount of coliform bacteria (CB) on fish body surface
reduced by 100-1,000 times to almost the same with the fish
from non-manured pond; and the MPN is less 40ind/100cm
after descaled and rinsed.
 Conclusion

• Advice to farmer to reduced the contamination

possibility in all procedures of production practice;
especially for marketable fish, they may be
contaminated by container and transportation tools.
• To consumers, it is better to eat the well cooked
fish products and do not eat the raw fish products
since they may carry some parasite and affect on
human health according to reports.