EVALUATION OF EFFECT OF DIFFERENT MULBERRY PLANTATION SYSTEMS ON REARING PERFORMANCE OF SILKWORM (Bombyx mori L.)

S. MAGADUM¹*, F. AZIZ², J. LAL³, M. BALA⁴, P. SHARMA⁵, A. SHARMA⁶, R. KOUSER⁷, L. DESKIT⁸, S. SINGH^9
1Regional Sericultural Research Station, Central Silk Board, Miran Sahib, Jammu,181101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
²P.G. Department of Sericulture, University of Jammu, Poonch,185101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
³P.G. Department of Sericulture, University of Jammu, Poonch,185101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
⁴P.G. Department of Sericulture, University of Jammu, Poonch,185101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
⁵P.G. Department of Sericulture, University of Jammu, Poonch,185101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
⁶P.G. Department of Sericulture, University of Jammu, Poonch,185101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
⁷P.G. Department of Sericulture, University of Jammu, Poonch,185101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
⁸P.G. Department of Sericulture, University of Jammu, Poonch,185101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
⁹Regional Sericultural Research Station, Central Silk Board, Miran Sahib, Jammu,181101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
* Corresponding Author : santoshk.csb@gov.in

Received : 05-12-2019     Accepted : 26-12-2019     Published : 30-12-2019
Volume : 11     Issue : 24       Pages : 9354 - 9357
Int J Agr Sci 11.24 (2019):9354-9357

Keywords : Mulberry, Silkworm, Plantation Systems, Silk Quality, Cocoon Yield
Academic Editor : Dr D. R. Gangapur, Basavaraj
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Regional Sericultural Research Station, Central Silk Board, Ministry of Textiles, Govt. of India, CSB Complex, Miran Sahib, Jammu, 181101, Jammu & Kashmir, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

The present study was conducted at Regional Sericultural Research Station, Central Silk Board, Miran Sahib, Jammu during Spring, 2019 to evaluate the effect of different mulberry plantation systems on rearing performance of silkworm (Bombyx mori L.) under sub-tropical conditions. The rearing performance of double hybrid (FC1×FC2) i.e. (CSR6 × CSR26) × (CSR2 × CSR27) silkworm was assessed by feeding the silkworm larvae with leaves from different plantation systems of mulberry variety S-146. The larval and cocoon parameters viz., mature larval weight (64.35 g), effective rate of rearing per 10000 larvae [by number (8973.01) and by weight (20.24 kg)], single cocoon weight (2.40 g), single shell weight (0.50 g) and shell ratio (22.45 %) were found to be higher in cocoons produced by silkworms fed with leaves of 3×3 ft. plantation system when compared to 8x8 ft. and 10x10 ft. plantation systems. The post-cocoon parameters viz., average filament length (1205.14 m), average non-breakable filament length (1150.29 m), reelability percentage (84.72 %) and raw silk percentage (40.32 %) were also found to be superior in cocoons produced by silkworms fed with leaves of 3×3 ft. plantation system as compared to wider spacing plantations. It has been observed that narrow spacing bush mulberry (3×3 ft. plantation system) has a positive impact on the cocoon and silk quality parameters when compared to wider spacing (8x8 ft. and 10x10 ft.) tree plantation systems.

1. Masrat S. and Tripathi A.K. (2017) Int. J. Bus. Admin. Res. Rev., 1(18), 81.
2. Babu K.R., Ramakrishna S., Reddy Y.H.K., Lakshmi G., Naidu N.V., Basha S.S. and Bhaskar M. (2009) Afr. J. Biotech., 8, 899-907.
3. Masthan K., Kumar T.R. and Narsimha Murthy C.V. (2011) Asian J. Microb. Biotech. Environ. Sci., 13(1), 205-208.
4. Aruga H. (1994) Oxford and IBH publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd, 66, Janpath, New Delhi, India, 376.
5. Krishnaswami S. (1978) Bulletin No. 2, CSR&TI, Mysore, India, 1-24.
6. Krishnaswami S. (1983) Indian Silk, 22, 3-11.
7. Singh R.K. and Choudhary B.D. (1977) Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, India, 53-59.
8. Datta R.K., Basavaraja H.K. and Mano Y. (1996) Manual on bivoltine rearing race maintenance and multiplication, published by Central Sericultural and Training Institute, Mysore, India.
9. Tayade D.S., Jawale M.D. and Uchegaonkar. (1988) Indian J. Seri., 27(2), 92-94.
10. Gangwar S.K. (2010) Agric. Biol. J. North Am., 1(3), 350-354.
11. Bothikar P.A., Jadhav S.S. and Shinde Y.A. (2014) J. Ind. Pollu. Contr., 30(2), 239-241.
12. Venkatesh R.K., Kumar D. and Pher R. (2014) Int. J. Adv. Res., 2(3), 921-927.
13. Vanitha C. and Narayanaswamy K.C. (2019) Int. J. Curr. Microbio. Appl. Sci., 8(4), 2020-2025.
14. Rahman M.S., Chowdhuri R.S., Sau H. and Ghosh P.L. (2009) Bull. Indian Acad. Ser., 13(1), 75-78.
15. Pakhale S.G., Bothikar P.A., Lande U.L. and Shendage S.A. (2014) J. Environ. Sci. Toxic. Food Tech., 8(12): 63-65.
16. Jalaja Kumar S. and Nair S.K. (2011) Psyche, 1, 1-3.
17. Adeduntant S.A. (2013) Advan. Life Sci., 3(2): 23-27.
18. Malik G.N., Massoodi M.A., Kamili A.S. and Sofi A.M. (2006) J. Ser., 6(1&2), 47-49.
19. Kumar H., Satyapriya Y., Kumar M. and Elangovan V. (2013) J. Ento., 10(3), 147-155.
20. Ananya N.C. (2014) M.Sc., Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru, India.
21. Rathod B.S., Nalwandikar P.K., Shetgar S.S., Sawant C.G. and Sonkamble M.M. (2015) The Bioscan, 10(1), 1-4.
22. Tasleem. (2017) JK Know. Initia., 1(2), 80-82.
23. Ghosh A., Dutta T., Saha A.K., Shivnath, Kar N.B., Mandal K. and Bajpai A.K. (2009) J. Crop Weed, 5(1), 44-47.
24. Mano Y. (1994) Comprehensive reports on silkworm breeding. Central Silk Board, Bengaluru, India, 180.
25. Lalfelpuii R., Choudhury B.N., Gurusubramanian G. and Kumar N.S. (2014) Sci. Vis., 14(1), 34-38.
26. Jyothi M., Pratap M. and Thimma N.S. (2014) Int. J. Pharm. BioSci., 5, 835-840.
27. Shinde K.S., Avhad S.B. and Hiware C.J. (2014) Int. J. Interdisci. Multidisci. Stud., 1, 344-348.
28. Das B.C., Sahu P.K., Sengupta T., Misra A.K., Saratchandra B. and Sen S.K. (2001) Indian J. Plant Physiol., 6, 162-165.
29. Kumar R. and Vadamalai E. (2010) Asian J. Exp. Bio. Sci., 1(2), 303-310.