1

FEASIBILITY OF GOLDEN APPLE SNAILS “Pomacea Canaliculata”

AS AN ADDITIVE OF FISH FOOD FOR
TILAPIA “Oreochromis Niloticus”

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of Senior High School

Tarlac National High School

San Roque Tarlac City

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirement for the Subject

Inquiries, Investigation, and Immersion

By

Rojen J. Porlucas

Christian Louie Ong

Jonathan P. Baniqued

Grade 12 STEM 2- Leibniz

 2i

ABSTRACT

Title: FEASIBILITY OF GOLDEN APPLE SNAILS (Pomacea Canaliculata)

AS AN ADDITIVE OF FISH FOOD FOR TILAPIA (Oreochromis Niloticus)

Proponents: ROJEN J. PORLUCAS

CHRISTIAN LOUIE ONG

JONATHAN P. BANIQUED

School: TARLAC NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL (MAIN)

Golden Apple Snail (Pomacea Canaliculata) is a GMO that exist here in the Philippines.

On the other side, the Tilapia fish (Oreochromis Niloticus) is a kind of fish that is localized here

in our country. The proponent will test the feasibility of golden apple snail (Pomacea

Canaliculata) as an alternative fish food for tilapia (Oreochromis Niloticus). On this study, the

researchers conducted a comparative study between the commercialize fish food and golden

apple snail/Meigma. This study aims to develop a brand new fish food that can help our fish

grower to boost their production of fish, especially Tilapia fish. The researchers tested the new

fish food/Meigma by doing a test between control group and experimental group of fishes. The

two groups of fish undergo 4-week of test. The control group was fed with local fish food while

the experimental group was fed with Meigma. Every week each fish was tested by measuring its

length and weight. After 4 weeks of test, as shown by the results, the new fish food/Meigma is

more beneficial than the commercialize fish food. . The researchers concluded that golden apple

snail has a potential of being a component of the fish food.

 3ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to express our solemn thanks to our adviser, Ms. Michelle Villanueva,

who guided us in every step of the journey and provided us with much intelligence to finish the

study. To our research teacher, Mr. Arman Serrano, for his patience in guiding us on making this

study possible.

Also, we are very much thankful to our supportive parents who had always given us their

outmost understanding and care to keep us going on the right track and provide the everyday

inspiration.

Friends, PQPP and TG, acquaintances and subject teachers had also played a major role

on cheering on us, helping us persevere to finish the study.

Nothing would be ever made possible without the interference of the almighty God, who,

with his power ranger, let this project be successfully conducted.

 4iii

DEDICATION

For our wonderful parents

For our supportive advisers

For our friends, PQPP and TG

For those hard workers in the field of rice

For those seeking the truth and death just like us

 5
iv

Table of Contents

Abstract i
Acknowledgement ii
Dedication iii
Table of Contents iv

CHAPTER I – The Problem and its Background 7

Introduction 7
Statement of the Problem 9
Significance of the Study 9
Scope and Delimitation of the Study 10
Definition of Terms 10

CHAPTER II – Review of Related Literature and Studies 11

Related Literature 12
Related Studies 13
Conceptual Framework 15

CHAPTER III – Methods of Study and Sources of Data 16

Research Design 16
Research Locale 16
Methods of Gathering Data 16
Statistical Treatment 17

CHAPTER IV – Presentation, Analysis and Interpretation of Data 18

CHAPTER V – Summary of Results, Conclusions and Recommendations 28
Summary of Results 28
Summary of Conclusions 29
Recommendation 29
 6v

Bibliography 30
Documentations 32
Appendices 40
 7

CHAPTER 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

This chapter includes the introduction, theoretical framework, statement of the problem,

hypothesis, scope and limitation, conceptual framework, significance of the study and the

definition of terms used.

INTRODUCTION

The Philippines is an example of an archipelago. It is made up of three big groups of

islands - Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. There are 10 biggest islands in the Philippines. These

are the following: Luzon, Mindanao, Samar, Negros, Palawan, Panay, Mindoro, Leyte, Cebu,

and Bohol. With these islands, various land formations occupy space and these formations will

make a visible reason to see Philippines as an Agricultural country. The gift of natural resources

makes most Filipinos harvesters of those.

A big part of Philippines’ land formation is the plains, where is suitable for planting

various crops like rice and corn. The widest plain is in Central Luzon. This made most Filipinos

get their living in farming. Though farming is not a simple job it does help people to make living

and also economically. It is where Filipinos get their necessary needs such as rice and many

more. Also not all farm lands are healthy and free from pests. According to IRRI (International

Rice Research Institute) there is an estimated average of 37% loss of crops to farmers because of

pests and diseases every year.

 8

The biggest pests of rice fields are the black tiny moving creatures on rice plains called

snails. There are more than 100 species of apple snail that exists. Two species, Pomacea

canaliculata and Pomacea maculata, commonly known as Golden Apple Snails, are highly

invasive and cause damage to rice crops. They were introduced to Asia, from South America, in

the 1980s as potential food for people, but it unfortunately became a major pest of rice. Golden

apple snails eat young and emerging rice plants. They cut the rice stem at the base, destroying

the whole plant. The golden apple snail is considered a major problem of rice. If no control

measure is taken, they can completely destroy 1 m2 of field overnight. This damage could lead to

more than 50% yield loss.

These creatures are not easy rivals. Snails are able to spread through irrigation canals,

natural water distribution pathways, and during flooding events. When water is absent, apple

snails are able to bury themselves in the mud and hibernate for up to six months. When water is

re-applied to fields, snails may emerge. The best elimination process to make is encouraging

natural predators. Though not all see apple snails as a delicious course meal this can be an

additive to something. The snail itself is rich in protein that most in fish growers find in their fish

foods. This would be a great answer for the problem of most farmlands. The snail will be an

additive to fish food of Tilapia, a freshwater or brackish water (mixture of fresh and saltwater)

fish native to Africa that is now being raised globally to add protein to the diets of people in less-

developed areas especially in Asia and South America. As tilapia increase in size, they can be

feed a pellet diet that contain key nutrients such as proteins (amino acids), fats, minerals, and

vitamins. Since Filipinos also do fish farming the project will help and benefit both agriculture

and fishery party.

 9

Statement of the Problem

The study focused on the Feasibility of Golden Apple Snails “Pomacea Canaliculata” to

be added in fish food of tilapia “Oreochromis Niloticus”. Specifically, it aims to answer the

following questions:

1. What specific part of the golden apple snail can be an additive of fish food for Tilapia

fish?

2. What will be the differences between the first group of fish which is eating the new fish

food and the group of fish which are eating the original fish food?

3. What are the negative effects of the new fish food?

4. What are the good effects of the new fish food?

5. What is/are the side effects of the new fish food to the Tilapia fish?

Significance of the Study

The study focused on explaining the Feasibility of Golden Apple Snails “Pomacea

Canaliculata” to be added in fish food of tilapia “Oreochromis Niloticus”. Moreover, the results

of the study will be beneficial to the following:

Farmers whose main crop is rice. The farmers will be the main benefactor of this study

as of the number one pest of their fields will be lessen or eliminated.

Fish growers. Fish growers will benefit on the product of this study. The fish food that
 10

will be produced will be a great help since the source of protein of the pellet will be organically

made and will be cheaper than the existing fish pellet.

Economic. This move will help economically by using the existing resources and

eliminating the number one pest of the rice plains. This will result to rise in rice and fish harvest

that will surely have an effect to our economic growth.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study.

The study will localize its operation, focusing on Tarlac rice plains. The researchers will

get the golden apple snails on Tarlac area and will process it: extracting, drying and pulverizing

snail and adding it on an existing commercialized fish pellet. Two subjects will be held in a

separate aquarium or container. One fed by a commercialized food pellet and the other fed by the

Meigma/new fish food with golden apple snail additive.

Definition of Terms

Golden Apple Snails (pomacea canalicunata)/GAS- is a type of snail that is widely

spread in the rice plains of Asia and South America, pestering the land and farmers. This is the

main subject of this study.

Tilapia (oreochromis niloticus)- is a type of fish that is raised globally for protein diet.

This wil be the experim,ental variable of the study.

Meigma- in this study, it pertains to the new fish pellet containing the snail additive.

Fish food/ food pellet- the usual diet of tilapia fish.

 11

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter includes some related literature and studies of foreign and local which are

presented in the following paragraphs.

Related Literatures

Foreign Literatures

The golden apple snails are invasive species originated from the Southern part of

America (Cowie, 1986). These species of snails are widely spread across the globe from

countries to countries. They can grow in able to spread through irrigation canals, natural water

distribution pathways, and during flooding events. They also survive winter weather as based on

the temperature data in a paddy field in Southern Japan (Syoubu et al., 2001). According Winik

et al., 2000 these snails also bury itself to mud to hibernate up to six months. Which explains the

why the droughts brought to land do not interfere with the existence of these snails.

According to Brito et al., (2017) the most effective method to control snails relates to

crop establishment. For instance, transplanted 20-day-old seedlings are better able to withstand

snail damage than 13-day-old transplanted seedlings or direct-seeded rice. Seedlings more than

30-days-old are more tolerant to snail damage than younger seedlings. Over the past 15 years, a

number of options for P. canal-iculata biological control have emerged. The fire ant Solenop-sis

geminata consumed P. canaliculata eggs in Philippine field experiments in spite of the fact that

the eggs are considered toxic to most animals (Dreon et al., 2014). Although another ant

(Pheidologeton spp.) has also been reported to consume GAS eggs (Yusa, 2006), further studies

are needed to confirm the impact of ants. The relative absence of natural predators has allowed
 12

the rapid establishment and growth of GAS popu-lations soon after their introduction to an un-

infested habitat. Ducks have been extensively used to control P. canalicu-lata in both

transplanted and direct-seeded rice culture, but with variable results, depending on the race of the

ducks as well as the time of release. The effective number of ducks required is estimated to be

around 5–10 ducks per hectare, with results being more favorable in transplanted rather than

direct-seeded rice (Teo, 2001). While this strategy entails some cost, there is evidence that it has

been effective in some Asian and southern Latin American countries (IRGA, 2010).

A Fish Called Tilapia nearly after two decades of steady adoption of commercially viable

farming techniques, Tilapia is making inroads into the seafood market as a preferential substitute

for the traditional white meat fishes. And according to the literature, World Tilapia Farming

2002 by Cesar C. Alceste and Darryl E. Jory, Tilapia is becoming a competitor for traditional

white fish species. Apart from the U.S there is considerable interest for Tilapia in Europe as an

inexpensive substitute for white fish fillet. Analysis of specie-wise export statistics of Taiwan

has shown that the export to E.U has increased from 4.6 thousand MT ($5.8 million) in 2000 to

7.9 thousand MT (($10.4 million) in 2002. This shows the wide demand of Tilapia fish in the

market. Tilapia are more resistant to viral, Bacteriological and fungal diseases than other

aquaculture species and tolerate wide range of salinity. They prefer water temperatures between

29 and 31C. This shows that growing Tilapia would help countries economically.

Local Literatures

According to N. Bastari and A. Morales, (2001), Tilapias are native only to Africa and

the Levant. There are no native species with comparable characteristics for aquaculture in the

Philippines. The first tilapia introduced to the Philippines was the Mozambique tilapia

(Oreochromis mossambicus), imported from Thailand in 1950.5 The Nile tilapia (O. niloticus)
 13

was first introduced to the Philippines in 1972 and rapidly gained popularity with farmers and

consumers. It is now the main species of tilapia farmed in the Philippines and throughout tropical

Asia and the Pacific and has been called an "aquatic chicken," suitable for farming in diverse

systems, from backyard ponds to large commercial ponds and cages. Guerrero et al.,(2000)

mentioned about the substantial and continuous programs of freshwater aquaculture research and

extension have been undertaken in the Philippines since 1972.7 Tilapia farming in fishponds and

smallscale reservoirs developed mainly on irrigated and rainfed rice lands. Cage farming has

been practiced since the 1970s in large and small lakes. Other fishponds (mostly for tilapia) have

long been part of small-scale, mixed enterprise farms in the uplands and other remote areas.

However, most freshwater aquaculture in the Philippines has developed as a specialized

enterprise: with fish as a cash crop and not as a component of the kinds of integrated agriculture-

aquaculture farming systems that have typified its history in much of Asia.8 Similarly, rice-fish

integrated farming has not prospered in the Philippines and its future prospects seem limited.9

Tilapia farming in the Philippines has been and remains a specialized enterprise, regardless of

scale, while it retains an artisanal character.

Related Studies

Foreign Studies

Robert Cowie referred Golden apple snails as mystery snails for the reason of its

unimaginable survival rate in many kinds of weather and temperature. Even the taxonomy

of apple snails is not completely resolved, and it may be that a complex of

closely related species exists. Several common and scientific names have been used in
 14

the literature, and misidentification of invaders has added to the general confusion (Woodward

S. 2015). This is making the species too invasive and pestering rice fields. In 2004 Kayaike et al.,

used ebony fruit oil to eliminate these pests. But eliminating such pests with an expensive

instrument would just cost more. Better to use it for good reasons rather than just killing and

eliminating it.
 15

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework aims to elucidate the relationships between the variables of

the study as they undergo through the process (i.e., golden apple snail as an additive to fish

pellet) and the corresponding output.

INPUT:

GOLDEN APPLE SNAILS

PROCESS:

EXTRACTION
DRYING
PULVERIZING
ADDING THE GOLDEN
APPLE SNAILS TO
COMMERCIALIZE FISH
PELLET
BAKING
TREATMENT

OUTPUT:

MEIGMA

TREATMENT RESULTS

Figure 1.1 The Conceptual Framework

 16

CHAPTER 3
METHODS OF STUDY AND SOURCES OF DATA

Research Design
The research design of this study is experimental because it aims to analyze the

effectiveness of golden apple snails “Pomacea Canaliculata” as an additive to fish food of tilapia

“Oreochromis Niloticus”.

Research Locale
To localize the location of the study, the researchers select healthy tilapia fish and golden

apple snail at a local fish pond in Tarlac City.

Methods of Gathering Data

The researchers test the Meigma and normal fish pellet to Tilapia fishes with size 7,

placed in two different containers. Each container has 5 fishes given the same amount of water level,

sunlight, oxygen, and fish food. Container A has the fishes fed by normal fish food and Container B

contains the fishes fed with Meigma. The fish foods were given at the same time of the day. The fishes

were measured every week and compared. The growths of fishes in Container B were compared to fishes

of Container A. This showed the effectiveness of the Meigma.

The Meigma was made from the golden apple snails (GAS) the researchers collected from rice

plains in Tarlac and a normal fish food. The (GAS) were removed from its shell because shells are too

hard to be processed. The (GAS) then was sun dried for 2 days, making it brittle and easy to pulverize.

After drying it was then pulverized and mixed to normal fish food.

The results of the test were analyzed to determine the effect of Meigma to the sizes of the fishes.

The results were then given the appropriate statistical treatment.

 17

Statistical Treatment

The statistical treatment that was utilized in this study is T-test, because two variables

were compared throughout the procedure.

The objective focus on determining if there is a significant between the experimental and

control fish group in terms of their weight and length after 4 weeks.

The experimental group in this problem received Meigma added in their growing medium

and were allowed to grow fro after 4 weeks. Experiments were conducted under several constant

variables such as the amount of water, oxygen, condition of growing medium, feed conservation

ratio, daily feeding ration and temperature.

Using these formulas, the researchers were able to determine the average body weight

(ABW), daily feed ratio (DFR), total feed requirements (TFR) and feed conservation ratio

(FCR).

a. ABW (g)
𝐓𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐭. 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐨𝐦𝐥𝐲 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐝
=
𝐍𝐨. 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐝
b. DFR

= ABW x stocking density x feeding rate

c. TRF

= DFR x feeding duration

d. FCR
𝐀𝐦𝐨𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐝 (𝐤𝐠𝐬. )
=
𝐖𝐞𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐢𝐬𝐡 (𝐤𝐠𝐬. )

The closer the FCR to 1.0 kg the better is the feed. Good feeds have FCR’s of between
1.5 to 2.0 kg.
 18

CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

1. Problem

What Specific part of the golden apple snail can be an additive of the fish food for tilapia?

There is no specific part of the golden apple snail that can be considered as the only

additive for the Meigma. The whole flesh part of the snail was used and only the shells were

excluded as a part of it. The shell part of any mollusk is anatomically hard and ingesting it

may lead to serious indigestion for the Tilapia fish or any organism. The narrative of this

particular question was altered to ‘what specific part of the apple snail cannot be an additive

to fish food of tilapia?’, because the whole flesh was used and was useful because it was all

protein. Since protein is essential for every fish food introduced to every fish livestock.

2.1 Problem

Is there a significant difference between the growth rate of the control group and the

experimental group of fishes 4th week?

Though both of the groups were given the same amount of needs such as water level,

oxygen, and rate of feeding, the experiment showed variation. There was a significant

difference between the growth rate of the control group and the experimental group of fishes.

The experimental group showed the significant difference in their growth rate by weighting

heavier and measuring larger compared to the control group. The fishes in the experimental

group in which were introduced to the new fish food (Meigma) grew larger and weigh

heavier than the control group exposed to the commercialized good.

 19

2.2 Hypothesis

Ho Null Hypothesis

Both experimental and control group possesses the same growth rate.

Ha Alternative Hypothesis

There is significant difference between the experimental and control group in their

growth rate.

Statistical Tool: T-test

2.3 Results

In 0.005 level of significance, the computed T-value for weight (5.04) and length (4.27)

exceeds the required critical value 3.355. Thus, Ho which states that both experimental

and control groups possesses the same growth rate is rejected. Therefore, the fish under

both experimental and control groups possesses different growth rate. Since the growth

rate is comparable to each group.

T-value Ho (5.04) > T-valueReq (3.355), Rejected

T-value Ho (4.27) > T-valueReq (3.355), Rejected

 20

Pre-experimental Average Body Weight:

Experimental Group

1000𝑔
ABW = = 200g
5

Control Group

1000𝑔
ABW = = 200g
5

Pre-experimental Average Body Length:

Experimental Group

63.5𝑐𝑚
ABL = = = 12.7cm
5

Control Group

63.5𝑐𝑚
ABL = = = 12.7cm
5
 21

Table 1.1 A Table showing the growth of fish at Different Treatments at 1st week. (g, cm)

Weight of Weight of Length of Length of

Fish Fish Fish Fish

Fish Total Total
(control (experimental (control (experimental

group) group) group) group)

1 225g 224 449 15.24cm 15.22 30.46

2 219g 220 439 15.05cm 15.19 30.24

3 222g 225 447 15.15cm 15.23 30.38

4 224g 218 442 15.00cm 15.06 30.06

5 220g 225 445 15.11cm 15.17 30.28

Total 1110 1112 2222 75.55cm 75.87 151.42

X 222g 222.4 465.2 15.11cm 15.17 30.28

The test revealed that there is a significant difference between the control group and the

experimental group of fish in terms of weights and length. In the first week there was a close

range of weights from 218g to 225g and lengths from 15cm-15.24cm. Each group were given a

sample amount of 50 grams of commercialized fish food and 50 grams of meigma twice per day

every 6 hours starting from 6 am. The average weight of the fishes in the first week was 222

grams in the control group and 222.4 grams in the experimental group. The average length of the

control group was 15.11 cm and 15.17 cm on the experimental group. As a result the control

group gained about 22 grams and the experimental group gained about 22.4 grams in the first

week of the experiment. The length added to the control group was 0.11 cm and the length

added to the experimental group was 17 cm.

 22

Table 1.2 A Table showing the growth of fish at Different Treatments at 2nd week. (g, cm)

Weight of Weight of Length of Length of

Fish Fish Fish Fish

Fish Total Total
(control (experimental (control (experimental

group) group) group) group)

1 249g 251 500 17.42cm 17.46 34.88

2 235g 248 483 17.23cm 17.34 34.57

3 246g 249 495 17.35cm 17.40 34.75

4 244g 245 489 17.22cm 17.31 34.53

5 256g 258 504 17.45cm 17.57 35.02

Total 1128g 1251 2379 86.67cm 87.08 173.75

X 246g 250.2 475.8 17.33cm 17.42 34.75

The test revealed that there is a significant difference between the control group and the

experimental group of fish in terms of weights and length. In the second week there was a close

range of weights from 235g to 258g and lengths from 17.22cm-17.58cm. Each group were given

a sample amount of 60 grams of commercialized fish food and 60 grams of meigma twice per

day every 6 hours starting from 6 am. The average weight of the fishes in the second week was

225.6 grams in the control group and 250 grams in the experimental group. The average length

of the control group was 17.33 cm and 17.42 cm on the experimental group. As a result the

control group gained about 24 grams and the experimental group gained about 27.8 grams in the

first week of the experiment. The length added to the control group was 2.22 cm and the length

added to the experimental group was 2.25 cm.

 23

Table 1.3 A Table showing the growth of fish at Different Treatments at 3rd week. (g, cm)

Weight of Weight of Length of Length of

Fish Fish Fish Fish

Fish Total Total
(control (experimental (control (experimental

group) group) group) group)

1 289g 294 583 19.21cm 19.37 38.58

2 275g 291 566 19.11cm 19.32 38.43

3 288g 289 577 19.02cm 19.28 38.30

4 291g 292 583 19.18cm 19.41 38.59

5 296g 301 597 19.31cm 19.53 38.84

Total 1439g 1467 2906 95.83cm 96.91 192.74

X 287.8g 291.4 381.2 19.17cm 19.38 38.55

The test revealed that there is a significant difference between the control group and the

experimental group of fish in terms of weights and length. In the third week there was a close

range of weights from 275g to 301g and lengths from 19.02cm-19.53cm. Each group were given

a sample amount of 65 grams of commercialized fish food and 65 grams of meigma twice per

day every 6 hours starting from 6 am. The average weight of the fishes in the third week was

287.8 grams in the control group and 291.4 grams in the experimental group. The average length

of the control group was 19.17 cm and 19.38 cm on the experimental group. As a result the

control group gained about 41.8 grams and the experimental group gained about 41.2 grams in

the third week of the experiment. The length added to the control group was 1.84 cm and the

length added to the experimental group was 1.96 cm.

 24

Table 1.4 A Table showing the growth of fish at Different Treatments at 4th week. (g, cm)

Weight of Weight of Length of Length of

Fish Fish Fish Fish

Fish Total Total
(control (experimental (control (experimental

group) group) group) group)

1 311g 316 627 22.23cm 22.28 44.52

2 304g 314 618 22.17cm 22.31 44.48

3 307g 310 617 22.05cm 22.25 44.30

4 315g 319 634 22.19cm 22.37 44.56

5 319g 326 645 22.26cm 22.46 44.72

Total 1556g 1585 3141 110.09 111.67 222.57

X 311.2g 317 628.2 22.18 22.33 44.55

The test revealed that there is a significant difference between the control group and the

experimental group of fish in terms of weights and length. In the fourth week there was a close

range of weights from 304g to 326g and lengths from 22.05cm-22.46cm. Each group were given

a sample amount of 70 grams of commercialized fish food and 70 grams of meigma twice per

day every 6 hours starting from 6 am. The average weight of the fishes in the fourth week was

311.2 grams in the control group and 317 grams in the experimental group. The average length

of the control group was 22.18 cm and 22.33 cm on the experimental group. As a result the

control group gained about 23.4 grams and the experimental group gained about 25.6 grams in

the fourth week of the experiment. The length added to the control group was 3.01 cm and the

length added to the experimental group was 2.95 cm.

 25

Graph 1.1 Significant Difference of Weight of Tilapia Fish Every Week (grams)

350

300

250

200 Control Group (Commercialize

Fish Pellet)
150 Experimental Group (Meigma)

100

50

0
1st Week 2nd Week 3rd Week 4th Week

Interpretation

The graph revealed the significant difference between the average weight of the control

group and the experimental group consisting of the weekly data. On the first week, the bar of the

control and experimental group were almost equal showing a bit of difference in weight of the

two. The second week bar showed slight difference in the growth of the experimental group

compared to the control group. The third week also showed a slight difference between the two

groups. The fourth bar showed the final average weight growth of the fishes, concluding that the

experimental group grew heavier than the control group.

 26

Graph 1.2 Significant Difference of Length of Tilapia Fish Every Week (cm)

25

20

15
Control Group (Commercialize
Fish Pellet)
Experimental Group (Meigma)
10

0
1st Week 2nd Week 3rd Week 4th Week

Interpretation

The graph shows the significant difference between the average length of the control

group and the experimental group consisting of the weekly data. On the first week, the bar of the

control and experimental group were almost equal showing a bit of difference in length of the

two. The second week bar showed slight difference in the growth of the experimental group

compared to the control group. The third week also showed a slight difference in the length

between the two groups. The fourth bar showed the final average length growth of the fishes,

concluding that the experimental group grew larger than the control group.
 27

3. Problem

What are the negative effects of the new fish food?

This certain question was left unanswered since the growth of fishes in the experimental

group showed good results in growing larger and weighting heavier. The overgrowth can be

considered abnormal to organisms and that concludes that it was the negative effect of the fish

food. Although, that was the goal of the experiment ‘to make the rate of fish livestock wider’, it

was the only possible negative effect of the Meigma.

4. Problem

What are the good effects of the new fish food?

The new fish food made the Tilapia fish in the experimental group grew larger and weigh

heavier. It made the fishes contain more flesh to eat. This concludes to a greater economic value

of the Meigma. The Meigma can extend the rate of livestock of tilapia fish. By adding more

protein to fish foods, it results to bigger fishes. The bigger fishes can be sold to the market with a

lower price because the Meigma was cheaper and effective in growing fishes.

5. Problem

What is/are the side effect/s of the new fish food to the tilapia fish?

The possible side effects witnessed in the study were overgrowth and abnormal eating

habits such as over eating.

 28

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY OF RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter presents the summary of the research work undertaken, the conclusions

drawn and the recommendations made as an outgrowth of this study. This study is on the

possibility of the Golden Apple Snail (pomacea canaliculata) a biological pest as an additive to

fish food of Tilapia fish (Oreochromis Niluticus).

The Tilapia fishes used were bought gradually in the same state before this study was

undertaken.

Summary of Results

The growth rate of both of the experimental group and control group were comparable.

The significant difference was shown in different growth rate if the two groups. The

experimental group grew larger and weigh heavier than the control group.

Problem 1 would be answered as; everything fleshy in the Golden apple snail can be used as an

additive to the fish food.

Problem 2 resulted to the rejection of the null hypothesis about having no significant difference

in the fish growth.

Problem 3 was based according to how the law of the ecosystem should be balanced, so

overgrowth was considered a negative effect of the Meigma.

Problem 4 showed that the Meigma affects both the community and economy positively by

making the Tilapia fish grew larger and weigh heavier containing more flesh to eat.
 29

Problem 5 was answered as overgrowth and abnormal eating habits such as over eating as the

side effect of the Meigma to the Tilapia fish.

Summary of Conclusions

Based on the results of the study, the researchers drawn the following conclusions;

1. The researchers conclude that, there was a significant difference in the experimental and

control group based on the varying sizes and weights of the Tilapia fishes.

2. The researchers conclude that, Tilapia fishes grew larger with the aid of the added protein

in their diet.

3. The researchers conclude that, commercialized fish foods lack protein content making

fishes shrink in size compared to the fishes introduced to Meigma.

Recommendations

To further scrutinize the biological effects of golden apple snail/Meigma to the growth rate of

tilapia fish, the researchers offer the following recommendations.

 Large number of tilapia fish and more natural environment to maximize the

treatment and to acquire higher growth rate.

 Different ratio of Meigma product

 Utilization of oxygen and as much as possible, increasing the amount of Meigma.

This is done to speed up the growth rate of the tilapia fish.

 Exploitation of digital scales and highly powered research devices.

 30

Bibliography

Cowie (1986). “Invasive apple snails: ecology and management in Hong Kong”.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/JianWen_Qiu/publication/321155124_Ip_KKL_Qiu_JW_2
017_Invasive_apple_snails_ecology_and_management_in_Hong_Kong_pp_145166_In_Joshi_R
C_Cowie_RH_Sebastian_LS_eds_Biology_and_Management_of_Invasive_Apple_Snails_Philip
pine_Rice_Research_I/links/5a113574aca27287ce28b431/Ip-KKL-Qiu-JW-2017-Invasive-
apple-snails-ecology-and-management-in-Hong-Kong-pp-145-166-In-Joshi-RC-Cowie-RH-
Sebastian-LS-eds-Biology-and-Management-of-Invasive-Apple-Snails-Philippine-Rice-
Resear.pdf . January 2017.

Brito et al., (2016). “The golden apple snail pomacea canaliculata: A review on invasion,
dispersion and control”.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307440179_The_golden_apple_snail_pomacea_canalic
ulata_A_review_on_invasion_dispersion_and_control. August 2016.

Dreon M. et al., (2004). “Insights into Embryo Defenses of the Invasive Apple Snail Pomacea
canaliculata: Egg Mass Ingestion Affects Rat Intestine Morphology and Growth”.
http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0002961. June 2014.

Song Yanf et al., (2016). ”Effects of dietary supplementation of golden apple snail (Pomacea
canaliculata) egg on survival, pigmentation and antioxidant activity of Blood parrot”.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5021657/. September 2016.

Chen, Sang-bo et al., (2014). ”Antioxidant defense system in the apple snail eggs, the role of
ovorubin”.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8917364_Antioxidant_defense_system_in_the_apple_s
nail_eggs_the_role_of_ovorubin. January 2014.

Teo (2001), “Evaluation of different species of fish for biological control of golden apple snail
Pomacea canaliculata (Lamarck) in rice”.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223016007_Evaluation_of_different_species_of_fish_f
or_biological_control_of_golden_apple_snail_Pomacea_canaliculata_Lamarck_in_rice.
September 2012

IRGA (2010), “Evaluation of different species of fish for biological control of golden apple snail
Pomacea canaliculata (Lamarck) in rice”.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223016007_Evaluation_of_different_species_of_fish_f
or_biological_control_of_golden_apple_snail_Pomacea_canaliculata_Lamarck_in_rice.
September 2012..
 31

Enriques, J (2008). https://www.peaklearning.com/documents/PEAK_GRI_enriquez.pdf .

December 2008.

“A fish called Tilapia”. https://thefishsite.com/articles/a-fish-called-tilapia. February 2004.

Albrecht, E. A. & Carreno, N.B. & Castro-Vazquez, A. (1966).

“A quantitative study of copulation and spawning in the South American apple-snail, Pomacea
canaliculata (Prosobranchia: Ampullariidae)”. The Veliger, 39(2): 142-147.

Albrecht, E. A. & Carreno, N.B. & Castro-Vazquez, A. (1999).

“A quantitative study of the environmental factors influencing the seasonal onset of reproductive
behaviour in the South American apple snail Pomacea canaliculata (Gastropoda:
Ampullariidae)”. Journal of Molluscian Studies, 65: 241-250.

Abalos, T.U.0 “The aquaculture engineering design of a freshwater recirculating system

for intensive culture of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)”. p. 1. In Book of Abstracts. World
Aquaculture '97. February 19-23, 1997, Washington State Convention Center, Seattle,
Washington, U.S.A.
 32

Pictorials

Golden Apple Snail (Pomacea Canaliculata) Fish Pellet Preparation

Extraction of golden apple snail from its shell

Drying of golden apple snail under the sun

(collected dried golden apple snail)

 33

Pulverizing of golden apple snail

(grinded golden apple snail)

(powdered golden apple snail)

Mixing of Golden Apple Snail and Sample Commercialize Fish Pellet

(commercialize fish pellet/adult floaters) (mixed GAP & CFP)

 34

Baking of mixed Powdered Golden Apple Snail and Commercialize Fish Pellet

(mixed GAP & CFP) (new fish pellet molder)

Product/ MEIGMA

Commercialize Fish Pellet

(Adult Floaters, Paf, Hoc po)

 35

Selection of Tilapia Fish (Oreochromis Niloticus)

Capturing of Tilapia Fish

(10 tilapia fish w/ same weight & length) (oxygenator)

 36

Separation of tilapia fish into two groups

(experimental group) (control group)

Replacing of water for stock containers

(water is replaced every 3 days)

 37

Measuring of growth rate of tilapia fish every week

1st Week (50 grams of fish food per day)

(measuring of length and weight of control group)

(measuring of length and weight of experimental group)

2nd Week (60 grams of fish food per day)

(measuring of length and weight of control group)

 38

(measuring of length and weight of experimental group)

3rd Week (65 grams of fish food per day)

(measuring of length and weight of control group)

(measuring of length and weight of experimental group)

 39

4th Week (70 grams of fish food per day)

(measuring of length and weight of control group)

(measuring of length and weight of experimental group)