INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY FOR GENETICALLY IMPROVED FARMED TILAPIA

This study determined the growth and survival rates of the Genetically Improved Farmed Tilapia (GIFT) in the HAPA using formulated sweet potato granules and commercial feeds at CTU Moalboal Campus for the academic year 2015-2016 as basis for the formulation of Techno Guide. Specifically it sought answers to the different feed formulation of GIFT in three treatments such as T1 for treatment No. 1, T2 for Treatment No. 2; and T3 for Treatment No.3. Feeds were formulated using the sweet potato peelings, leftover fish bones of the Mackerel scad, vegetable oil, and tablets of feeds. The experimental method was used in this study. Feed formulations of GIFT as to the following treatments: T1 = Treatment No. 1; 1.5 kg sweet potato peelings (Boniatos) + 750 grams leftover fish bones of the mackerel scad (Decapterus macarellus) + 375 ml. of vegetable oil; and + 3 tabs amino acid feed.T2= Treatment no. 2; 1.0 kg sweet potato peelings (Boniatos) + 750 grams leftover fish bones of the mackerel scad (Decapterus macarellus) + 375 ml. of vegetable oil and + 2 tabs amino acid feed. T3= Treatment no. 3; 0.5 kg sweet potato peelings (Boniatos) + 250 grams leftover fish bones of the mackerel scad (Decapterus macarellus) + 125 ml. of vegetable oil; and + 1 tab amino acid feed. The initial and final weight in grams, length in centimeters and width in centimeters are its highest on T1 then followed by T2 and T3. It was with the use of T1 which proved to be an effective feed. The growth performances of GIFT based on the aforementioned treatments as to the following factors: weight gained; length increments; and width increments were its highest on T1 followed by T2, and T3. There is no significant difference among the growth factors of the different treatments. From the findings, a conclusion is drawn that the initial and final weight in T3. It was with the use of T1 which proved to be an effective feed. The growth performances of GIFT based on the aforementioned treatments as to the following factors: weight gained; length increments; and width increments were are its highest on T1 followed by T2, T3. There is no significant difference among the growth factors of the different treatments. Based from the result of the Tukey Test, T1 and T2 were not significant with each other but it was significant with T2 and T3 while T2 was not significant to all other treatments. This implies that T2 is comparable with T3. The following recommendations are offered: first, the adoption of the techno-guide. Second, resource person should be invited to speak more about the different treatments. Third, there is a need to make a thorough discussion and elaboration on the topics. Lastly, reference materials should be available within the reach of the students.