Larval growth during stage I-VIII was studied in Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Duration in moult periodicity were recorded-during larval development period, larvae were fed with Brachionus (grown on Baker's yeast and also Brachinous raised through organic manuring in outdoor culture containers). The performance of the feed was evaluated through substitution of Brachionus in the feeding protocol, in lieu of Artemia 1st instar. The Artemia, Brachionus substitution ratio of 75:25 was found to be most efficient. The study also indicates that the comparative growth rate of Brachionus plicatilis is higher in manure loaded tanks than with Baker's yeast. Growth rate "Y'' in culture tank being 0.245 and 0.112 and corresponding duplicating time (Td) too was found to be 2.855 and 6.365 respectively in tanks manured/enriched with pig manure

Das, A.K.

Mohiuddin, M.I.

Aquatic Commons

Journal of the Indian Fisheries Association 
27, 2000, 37-45 
37 
SUBSTITUTION OF ARTEMIA WITHBRACHIONUS IN DIFFERENT RATIOS 
DURING LARVAL REARING OF MACROBRACHIUM ROSENBERG/I AND 
EVALUATION OF THEIR FEED EFFICACY 
APURBA KUMAR DAS AND M. IFTEKHAR MOHIUDDIN 
Central Institute of Fisheries Education 
Seven Bunglows) Versova) Mumbai- 400 061. 
ABSTRACT 
Larval growth during stage I-VIll were studied inMacrobrachium rosenbergii. 
Duration in moult periodicity were recorded-during larval development period, 
larvae were fed withBrachionus (grown on Baker's yeast and also Brachinous 
raised through organic manuring in outdoor culture containers). The 
performance of the feed was evaluated through substitution of brachionus in 
the feeding protocol, in lieu of artemia 1st instar. The Artemia, Br~chionus 
substition ratio of 75:25 was found to be most efficient. 
The study also indicates that the comparative growth rate of Brachionus 
plicatilis is higher in manure loaded tanks than with Baker's yeast. Growth 
rate "Y'' in culture tank being 0.245 and 0.112 and corresponding duplicating 
time (Td) too was found to be 2.855 and 6.365 respectively in tanks manured/ 
enriched with pig manure. 
Keywords: Feeding efficacy, Substitution ratio,Artemia/Brachionus 
INTRODUCTION 
Brachionus plicatilis is used as a live 
feed source in hatchery seed production. 
The substitution of this feed source in lieu 
of Artemia nauplii was reported to be 
economical, hence more and more hatchery 
operators resorted to substitute the use of 
Artemia with Brachionus in varying 
species. Coves, 1981; Gatesoupe and Robin, 
1981; have used Brachionus in lieu of 
Artemia during· hatchery rearing of Sea 
bass; Dicentrarchus labrax. Samocha et 
al.) 1988, used Brachionus in hatchery 
rearing of Penaeus semisulcatus larvae and 
have documented that when the larvae 
were fed with Brachionus the resultant 
dry weight gain of larvae was lower than 
the larvae fed with artemia nauplii. Ling, 
1967; listed rotifers among natural food of 
Macrobrachium rosenbergii larvae. 
Adisukresnoetal.) 1975. Ongetal., 1977, 
Fontaine and Revera, 1980; Dejarme et al.) 
1982, have used Brachionus plicatilis in 
the larval nutrition of M.resenbergii. The 
use ofBrachionus were reported by these 
workers with varied growth output and 
survival. Alam et al.) 1995; while rearing 
M.rosenbergii larvae have reported Moina 
mwrura as better feed substitute than 
rotifers. 
38 DAS AND IFTEKHAR MOHIUDDIN 
MATERIALS AND METHODS 
The experimental design comprised 
comparative growth of Brachionus plicatilis 
on yeast and mixed phytoplankters. The 
nutritive value ofBrachionus raised under 
these two different set of conditions was 
evaluated by feedings to the larvae of 
M.rosernbergii. The live feed B.plicatilis 
was used as food source, either solely or in 
combination with Artemia for the 
production of M. rosenbergii post larvae. 
a) Culture ofBrachionus 
Brachionus cultures were raised in 
(three) 1000 litre containers, 12 ppt salinity 
water was filled (admixing ground borewell 
saline water and fresh water) to adjust 
salinity of 12 ppt. One set of Brachionus 
culture were maintained through base 
manuring the water in the culture tank@ 
100 ppl1l. Subsequent phase manuring in 
these tanks were resorted with 50 ppm 
manure dose. Dried pig manure was used 
as the base and phase manure. 
b) The second set of Brachionus 
culture experiments were raised on feeding 
Baker's yeast. The culture water of 12 ppt 
salinity were innoculated with 14, 6 and 3 
individuals/ml ofBrachionus in three trials 
respectively. The culture tanks had water 
capacity of35litre, unlike the 1st set. The 
Baker's yeast was fed@ 20, 40 and 60 p.g/I. 
Thus the second set comprised 3 replicates. 
Growth in terms of productivity was 
measured every alternate day by recording 
population growth kinetics. 
c) Experimental set up to evaluate 
feed efficacy on growth and survival of 
M.rosenbergii larvae, the experimental 
containers were plastic tubs of 50 l capacity. 
Nine sets (each set in triplicate) were fed 
with combinations of Brachionus and 
artemia nauplii (Table 1). Feeding to 
Table 1 : Brachionus production (population growth stimulated by feeding 
with Baker's Yeast as food) in cultured tubs 
Treatment AmountofBaker's Inocuhm1 MaximumDensicyattained 
Culture period yeast given as feed* (indlml)** (nos. in million) 
(in days) 
Triall 8 I 20 14 I 80.00 
n 40 14 n 112.00 
ni 60 14 III 93.67 
Control 0 14 Control 13.33 
Trial2 8 I 20 6 I 15.33 
n 40 6 n 19.67 
III 60 6 III 16.67 
Control 0 6 Control 3.33 
Trial3 8 I 20 3 I 6.33 
n 40 3 n 9.67 
III 60 3 III 7.00 
Control 0 3 Control 2.33 
* Baker's yeast as food source was provided every alternate day@ 20, 40, 60 p.g/ml i11 
treatment I, II and III respectively. 
** Indicating nos./ml 
SUBSTITUTION OF ARTEMIA WITH BRACHIONUS IN DIFFERENT RATIOS 39 
M. rosenbergii larvae was carried out thrice 
daily. Two rations were of egg custard and 
third ration comprised live artemia, 
brachionus or combination as defined in 
table. Water quality parameters, growth 
rate and survival oflarvae were recorded, 
while evaluating the efficacy ofBrachionus 
as feed. 
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 
All culture containers were subjected 
to ambient physico-chemical conditions thus 
no control was exercised either for culture 
of Brachionus or for larval feeding with 
Brachionus as feed. Growth in terms of 
harvest, proximate composition and 
nutritive value have been worked out (Table 
6). The comparative growth rate (r) and 
the duplicating time ( td) have been worked 
out Table 2) for Brachionus. The 
experimental protocol followed was to 
evaluate feed's efficiency, and time required 
for development of larval stage in nine 
treatments (Table 5a and 5b) mean larval 
stage and relative growth rate as obtained 
(Table 3) suggests that artemia nauplii are 
no doubt best and substition to an extent of 
25% Brachionus grown on mixed algae and/ 
or Baker's yeast could be a safe option 
without any adverse impact on growth or 
survival. Use of Brachionus or other food 
items in lieu of artemia (partially) for rearing 
M. rosenbergii larvae were used by earlier 
workers too. Ling 1967, Fujimura and 
Okamoto, 1970, Kloke and Pataros, 1975, 
Sick and Beaty, 197 5, Murai and Andrews, 
1978, Aniello and Singh, 1982. Since the 
availability of good artemia is cost 
prohibitive, hence require conservative 
measures to sustain production. Ong et al.) 
1977; Fontaine and Revera, 1980 and 
Dajarme, 1982; Ling, 1967 listed rotifer 
among natural foods of Macrobrachium 
rosenbergii. As regards nutritive value of 
Brachionus, yeast fed rotifers are reported 
Table 2 : Intrinsic rate of growth and Duplicating time td (in days) of 
Brachionus required with Baker's yeast. 
Treatment Feeding rate Duplicating time Intrinsic rate of growth 
(f!g/ml) (td in days) (r) 
Trial1 1 20 9.120 0.076 
2 40 4.951 0.140 
3 60 5.728 0.121 
Control 0 9.366 -0.074 
Trial2 1 20 10.045 0.069 
2 40 7.072 0.098 
3 60 8.773 0.079 
Control 0 7.876 -0.088 
Trial3 1 20 11.950 0.058 
2 40 7.072 0.098 
3 -60 9.495 0.073 
Control 0 8.452 -0,.082 
I I sign indicates the population is decreased at that rate. 
40 DAS AND IFTEKHAR MOHIUDDIN 
Table 3 : Mean larval stage and Relative growth rate of M. rosenbergii in 
different treatments. 
Treatment/Amounting Mean larval stage Relative growth rate 
I 8.4A 2.239 
II 6.3 A+ 2.62 BC 1.013 
III 4.2 A+ 5.25 BC 0.960 
N 2.1 A+ 7.87 BC 0.784 
v 10.5 BC 0.448 
VI 6.3 A+ 2.62 BY 1.120 
VII 4.2 A+ 5.25 BY 1.025 
VIII 2.1 A+ 7.87 BY 0.588 
IX 10.5BY 0.336 
Quantity of Ration in Grams is worked out by the following formula 
Q = (C * V * 1.4) I 1000 
where, 
C =Concentration ofB.plicatilis I Artemia nauplii (n/ml) and 
V =Volume of culture (ml) 
Q =Quantity of ration (gram) 
A=Artemia 
BC =Brachia nus grown on Chiarella 
BY= Brachionus grown on Yeast 
100.00 
100.00 
94.83 
81.40 
65.12 
98.28 
96.55 
81.40 
67.44 
Table 4 : Parcentage of survival of M. rosenbergii in nine different treatments 
Treatment Average Average number of Average% Mean% 
number of individuals survived till survival survival± (S.E) 
larvae stocked termination of 
experiment 
I 750 70.00 9.34 9.33 ± (2.37) 
II 750 31.67 4.22 4.22 ± (0.92) 
III 750 30.00 4.00 4.00 ± (0.63) 
N 750 28.00 3.73 3.73 ± (0.64) 
v 750 16.00 2.13 2.13 + (0.78) 
VI 750 35.00 4.67 4.67 ± (0.77) 
VII 750 32.00 4.26 4.27 + (1.23) 
VIII 750 21.00 2.80 2.80 ± (0.54) 
IX 750 12.00 1.60 1.60 ± (0.38) 
S.E. =Standard Error 
(Pronounced mortality was observed after stage IV of the larval cycle, apart from normal 
mortality) 
Table 5(a): Data on observed Growth, Larval moUlting and Time duration from one moult to another inM.rosenbergii 
Treatment Larval Stage Optimum time required Observed time Relative difference of 
for larval growth recorded in time from one moult 
(in hours) treatments (in hours) to another (in hours) (/). 
I* II-III 84 84 No difference d to 
II II-III 84 84 No difference (/). ,_;j 
H 
III II-III 84 84 No difference ,_;j d 
IV II-III 84 84 No difference ,_;j H 
v II-III 84 84 No difference 0 z 
VI II-III 84 84 No difference 0 
"=j 
VII II-III 84 84 No difference ~ VIII II-III 84 84 No difference t:rJ 
IX II-lli 84 84 No difference ~ 
H 
::» 
I* III-IV 72 72 No difference ~ H 
II III-IV 72 72 No difference 
,_;j 
~ 
III III-IV 72 84 12 to s;: IV III-IV 72 108 36 0 
v III-IV 72 120 48 ~ H 
VI III-IV 72 72 No difference 0 z 
VII III-IV 72 84 12 d (/). 
VIII III-IV 72 96 24 H z 
IX III-IV 72 108 36 d H 
"=j 
"=j 
I* N-V 84 84 No difference t:rj ::0 
II IV-V 84 84 No difference 
t:rj 
z 
ill IV-V 84 96 
,_;j 
12 ~ IV IV-V 84 108 24 ,_;j 
H 
v N-V 84 120 36 0 (/). 
VI IV-V 84 84 No difference 
VII · -IV-V 84 84 No difference 
VIII IV-V 84 108 24 
IX IV-V 84 108 24 .j:>. 
--
Table 5 (JJ) : Data on observed Growth, Larval moulting and Time duration from one moult to another in M.rosenbergii 
Treatment Larval Stage Optimum time required Observed time 
for larval growth recorded in 
(in hours) treatments (in hours) 
r· .,. V-VI 132 132 
II V-VI 132 132 
III V-VI 132 144 
N V-VI 132 156 
v V-VI 132 180 
·vr V-VI 132 132 
VII V-VI 132 144 
VIII V-VI 132 156 
IX V-VI 132 192 
ps VI-VII 144 144 
n VI-VII 144 144 
UI VI-VII 144 144 
IV VI-VII 144 156 
v VI-VII 144 192 
VI VI~VII 144 144 
VII VI-VII 144 144 
VIII VI-VII 144 168 
IX VI-VII 144 192 
I* VII-VIII 180 180 
II VII-VIII 180 180 
III VII-VIII 180 180 
N VII-VIII 180 
v VII-VIII 180 
VI VII-VIII 180 192 
VII VII-VIII 180 180 
VIII VII-VIII 180 
IX VII-VIII 180 
'-'The larvae have not moulted to the next stage till the termination of the experiment. 
*Base line datum, considered for comparison of all the other treatments. 
Relative difference of 
time from one moult 
to another (in hours) 
No difference 
No difference 
12 
24 
48 
12 
24 
48 
60 
No difference 
No difference 
No difference 
12 
48 
No difference 
No differecne 
24 
48 
No difference 
No difference 
No difference 
12 
No difference 
>J::.. 
tv 
tj 
:» 
w 
~ 
tj 
>-< ~ 
>-3 
t;rj 
@ 
~ 
~ 
0 p:: 
>-< 
d 
tj 
tj 
>-< 
z 
SUBSTITUTION OF ARTEMIA WITH BRACHIONUS IN DIFFERENT RATIOS 43 
Table 6: Biochemical Composition of Feeds used in Larval rearing of 
M. rosenbergii 
Item Moisture Ash Protein Ether Extract Carbohydrate % 
% % 
Artemia nauplii 82.83 1.2 
Dry yeast 5.15 
Brachionus 75.86 21.89 
(grown on yeast) 
Brachionus 78.52 19.76 
(grown on mixed 
phytoplankton) 
superior than algae fed ones (Lubzens et 
al., 1987). Lovett and Felder, 1988, reported 
a contradictory observation that 
M.rosernbergii are unable to obtain 
significant nutrition from Brachionus, 
therefore, Brachionus is neither, suitable 
substitute in lieu of Artemia nauplii nor a 
useful supplement in larviculture of 
M.rosenbergii. However we do not agree 
with us observation since even partial 
substitution could be of value in the overall 
economics of the hatchery. The introduction 
ofrotifers to the culture medium itselfled 
to infestations/infections in cultures viz. 
Brachionus and lvf.acrobrachium. Alam, 
1993, reported the higher Mean Larval 
stage (MLS) both in case oflarvae feel with 
Artemia nauplii and Moina rnicrura (MLS 
being 1.87 ancl1.88 respectively). During 
presmit evaluation our values of MLS as 
worked out was found to be 2.23 and 1.013 
when 100% artemia nauplii and (75% 
' 
artemia and 25% Brachionus) was 
dispensed as feed. Alam et al., 1993, reported 
% % (Crude fibre + 
Nitrogen free extract) 
47.19 19.33 33.48 
45.72 0.981 48.15 
29.39 3.79 44.93 
30.89 5.99 43.36 
Moina to be better substitute than 
Brachionus for Macrobrachiwn larvae. The 
use of Brachionus plicatilis as live food did 
not entail a regular clearing of the 
experimental tubs. However, the dead 
rotifers not ingested were rapidly colonized 
by the protozoan as well as bacteria which 
causes the mass mortality of the larvae 
after 2nd week. 
REFERENCE 
Adisukresno, S., A. Poernomo, M. 
Budiona and S. Busman 1975. 
Preliminary experiments on mass 
rearing of Macrobrachium larvae. 
Shrimp culture Research Centre, 
J apara, Indonesia. Proc. Int. Conf 
Prawn Farming, Vung Tau, Vietnam, 
31 March- 4 April1975, 7. 
Alam, M.J., S.H. Cheah, and K.J. Ang 
1993. Use of Moina Micrura (Kurz) as 
anArtemia substitute in the production 
44 DAS AND IFTEKHAR MOHIUDDIN 
ofMacrobrachiwn rosenbergii (de Man) 
post larvae. Aquaculture, 109: 337-349. 
Alam, M.J., K.J. Ang and M. Begum 
1995. Replacement of Artemia with 
Moina micrura in the rearing of 
freshwater shrimp larvae. Aquaculture 
International, 3: 243-248. 
Aniello, M.S. and T. Singh 1982. Some 
studies on the larviculture of giant 
prawn (Macrobrachium rosenbergii). 
In: GiantPrawnFarming(editor),. M.B. 
New Elsvier, New York, NY225-232. 
*Coves, D. 1981. Etat actuel de I'elevage 
du loup (Dicentrarchus labrax) 
enecloserie,Aquarevue, 3:26. 
*Coves, D. 1981. Comparison de different 
modes d' alimentation du Rotifer 
Brachionus plicatilis (Muller) en 
elevage intensif continue. Influence de 
sa composition en acides gras des lipids 
tataux sur celle de larves de loup 
Dicentrachus labrax L. Rapport de 
D.E.A. Universite d' Aix Marseille II. 
Dejarme, H.E., J.B. Dominisac and S.M. 
Dejarme 1982. Notes an spawner 
collection methods and larval rearing 
of giant prawns (Macrobrachium 
resenbergii, (de Man) at MSU-IFRD 
Station, N aawan, Misamis Oriental, 
Philippines. In: M.B. New (Editor), 
Giant Prawn Farming. Elsevier, New 
York, NY, 73-82. 
Fontaine, C.T. and D.B., Revera 1980. 
The mass culture of the rotifer 
Brochionus plicatilis, for use as a food 
stuff in aquaculture. Proc. World 
Maricult. Soc., 11:211-218. 
Fujimura, T. and H. Okamoto 1970. 
Notes on progress made in Developing 
a Mass culturing Technique for 
M.rosenbergii in Hawai. In: Coastal 
Aquaculture in the Indo-Pacific Region. 
T.V.R. Pillay (Editor). Fishing News 
(Boohs), Farnham, Great Britain, 313-
327. 
Gatesoupe, J.E. and Robin, J.H. 1981. 
Commercial single-cell protein either 
as sole food source or in formulated 
diets for intensive and continuous 
production of rotifers (Brachionus 
plicatilis), Aquaculture, 25: 1-15. 
Kloke, C.W. and M. Potaros 1975. The 
technology and economics of small scale 
prawn (lvf.acrobrachium rosenbergii) 
hatcheries. A case study in Thailand. 
Occas. Pap. Indo. Pac. Fish. Counc., 
1975/1:87. 
Lavens, P ., Ph. Leger and P. Sorgeloos 
1989. Manipulation of the fatty acid 
profile in Artemia offspring using a 
controlled production unit, in 
Aquaculture - a biotechnology in 
progress, De Pauw, N., Jaspers. E., 
Ackefors, H. and Wilkins, N. (Eds.), 
European Aquaculture Society, 
Bredene, Belgium, 1989, 731. 
Ling, S.W. 1967. Methods of rearing and 
culturing Macrobrachiwn rosenbergii 
(de Man). In: Proceedings ofthe World 
Scientific Conference on the Biology 
and Culture of Shrimps and prawns: 
FAO Fisheries, Report No. 57 (3), 
Mexico City, a Mexico, 12-21 June, 
1967. 
Lovett D.L. and D.L. Felder 1988. 
Evaluation of the rotifer Brachionus 
plicatilis as a substitute for Artemia in 
SUBSTITUTION OF ARTEMIA WITH BRACHIONUS IN DIFFERENT RATIOS 45 
feeding of larvae of Macrobrachium 
rosenbergii (de Man). Aquaculture) 71: 
331-338. 
Murai, T. and J.W. Andrews 1978. 
Comparisons of feeds for larval stages 
of the giant prawn (Macrobrachium 
rosenbergii). In: Proc. World 
Maricult.Soc. 1 9: 189-193. 
Ong, K.S., F.O. Ng and Y.K. Wong 1977. 
Experiences and problems in the design 
and operation of a Macrobrachium 
hatchery. In: JointFAO-UNDPI SCSP 
and SEAFDEC Region Worhshop on 
Aquaculture Engineering (with 
* Not referred to in original. 
emphasis on small scale project)) 
Tigbaun) Illioilo) Philippines) 27 Nov. 
-3 Dec. (1977). 
Samocha, T.M., N.Uziel and C.L. 
Browdy 1988. The effect of feeding 
two prey organisms, nauplii ofArtemia 
and rotifers, Brachionus plicatilis 
(Muller), upon survival and growth of 
larval marine shrimp P. semisulcatus 
(de Haan).Aquaculture1 77: 11-19. 
Sick, D.V. and H. Beaty 1975. 
Development of Formula foods designed 
for M.rosenbergii larvae and juvenile 
shrimp. Proc. v-Vorld Maricult. Soc.) 6: 
89-102. 


Substitution of Artemia with Brachionus in different ratios during larval rearing of Macrobrachium rosenbergii and evaluation of their feed efficacy

http://aquaticcommons.org/16561/1/JIFA27_037.pdf

Substitution of Artemia with Brachionus in different ratios during larval rearing of Macrobrachium rosenbergii and evaluation of their feed efficacy

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Aquatic Commons