Comparative growth and survival of hatchery produced and wildfingerlings of Deccan mahseer, Tor khudree (Sykes)
399 / 59
Abstract
The present study reveals the results of a growth trial conducted using the hatchery produced and wild caught fingerlings ofthe Deccan mahseer, Tor khudree (Cyprinidae). The fingerlings were fed with a diet containing 41.21% protein and 15.17%fat at the rate of 5% of the body weight, once daily for 120 days. On termination of the experiment, the hatchery producedfingerlings were found to reach an average weight of 96 g, while the wild caught fingerlings registered 49.16 g. Thecorresponding lengths obtained were 17.85 and 14.26 cm respectively. The growth increment was higher (0.74 g day-1) inhatchery produced fingerlings than that of the wild caught fingerlings (0.38 g day-1). The average survival rate was 98 and95% for the hatchery produced and wild fingerlings, respectively. The results of the proximate composition of the fishmuscle showed no significant difference between the two groups of fish.Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Downloads
Submitted
2012-03-31
Published
2025-10-13
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Copyright (c) 2014 Indian Journal of Fisheries

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The copyright of the articles published in Indian Journal of Fisheries vests with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, who has the right to enter into any agreement with any organization in India or abroad engaged in reprography, photocopying, storage and dissemination of information contained in these journals. The Council has no objection in using the material, provided the information is being utilized for academic purpose but not for commercial use. Due credit line should be given to the ICAR where information will be utilized.How to Cite
N. Sangma, K. O., & Basavaraja, N. (2025). Comparative growth and survival of hatchery produced and wildfingerlings of Deccan mahseer, Tor khudree (Sykes). Indian Journal of Fisheries, 59(1), 89-93. https://doi.org/10.21077/