The study determined the survival and the response of Oreochromis niloticus to different feeding compositions. 90 Oreochromis niloticus juveniles were fed different diets in triplicated treatments inside glass tanks. Treatment I comprised locally compounded diet; Treatment II, imported pelletized feed; and Treatment III - processed feathermeal based diet. Results showed that there was no significant differences (P>0.05) in the weight gain, feed intake, survival and feed conversion ratio. However, Treatment I had the highest feed intake, while treatment n had the highest weight gain and feed conversion ratio

Ajiboye, R.O.

Ishola, O.J.

Ogunbona, A.A.

Onigemo, M.A.

Aquatic Commons

10 12
5 5
18 18
36 36
20 0
5 5
5 5
0.25 0.25
0.25 0.25
0.50 0.50
o U~
Vitamin C
Feather Meal
Fish Premix
Soya Bean
FIsh Meal
Blood Meal
Spaghetti
Salt
Groundnut Cake
Maize
Wheat Offal
J able I: COI11££lsltlon01e:\pe_r_ll_n~el:-lt-:-a_'-:-d_le_ts-:::-_-:---:::-----:----:_----::-:--_-:-:-:--__
Diet I (J .ocal Iced) Diet 3 - Feather meal-based diet
MATERIALS Al\L) METHODS
The experiment was earned out In three glass tanks, each replicated thrice, having a volume of
O.17Sm3.. The tanks were washed, cleaned and filled with water to about three quarter of its volume.
90 0. niloticus were used tor the experiments. Each of the tanks replicate contained 10 juveniles of
tilapias and were randomly assigned to experimental diets treatment. Physiochemical parameters were
monitored and analyzed with Bauch and Lamb field analysis kit. pH, dissolved oxygen, temperature
and ammonia were analyzed. An aerator was used for effective circulation of oxygen in all the glass
tanks for the fishes. Also, changing of water was done every two days by siphoning and adding new
water to prevent pollution ..The fish was fed with the experimental diets daily for the duration of two
months. And they were fed till saturation. Treatment One (control) contained locally compounded
feed (fish meal InclUSIOn), treatment two with imported feed and Treatment Three was locally
compounded feed with feather meal inclusion (l4.5%).The feed was served at a fixed point in the
glass tank at each feeding time and was served twice daily ..Total weight of feed consumed per each
feeding trial and total body weight of fish was recorded every week. Complete randomized design
((,RD) method \\ <i:. used. The experiment consists of three treatments each with three replicates.
I~TROD1rc.TlON
One of the great advantages of ti lapias for aquacultures is that they feed on a low tropic level. The
members of the genus Oreochromis feed on algae, aquatic plant, small invertebrate, detntal rnatenal
and the associated bacterial films. This provides an advantage to farmer because the fish can be reared
in extensive system that depend upon the natural productivity of a water body or in Intensive system
that can be operated with lower cost feeds. Bowen (2001) showed that tilapia species may ingest
animal material but usually doesn't constitute a significant proportion of the fish total food intake.
IThe high cost of supplementary feed has been a source of concern to fish farmers and there is need to
feed fish at lowest possible cost and ensure high conversation ratio at the same time in order to meet
the need of fish species there is need to develop fish diets that will satisfy the nutritional and
physiological requirement of fish species. The increasing costs have made it necessary to search for
cheaper bUI equally efficient and readily available source as a substitute for fish meal. This study
determines the response of 0. niloticus to diff....rent types or feed - Imported pelletized feed. locally
compounded diet and feather meal-based diet.
ABSTRACT .J
The study determined the survival and the response of Oreochromis ntloticus to different feeding
compositions 90 Oreochronucs ntloticus juveniles were fed different diets in rnphcared treatments
inside glass tanks. 1 rcatrncnt I comprised locally compounded diet: Treatment Il, imported pelletized
feed: and 1reatment lIJ - processed feathermeal based diet. Results showed that there was no
sigrnficant differences (P>O.05) m the weight gam, feed intake, survival and feed conversion ratio.
However. Treatment I had the highest feed intake, while treatment Il had the highest weight gam and
feed conversion ratio.
OGUNBO~A, A.A., AJIBOYE, R.O., ONIGEMO, M.A. & ISnOLA, O.J.
Department of Animal Production and Fisheries, Lagos Polytechnic, Ikorodu
SL"RVIVAL AND RESPONSE OF Oreochromis niloticus TO DIFFERENT FEEDS
Table 3 shows the survival rate of the fishes fed in the experimental diet. Fish on 1reatrnent 3 had the
highest survival rate of 28.5 followed by Treatment 2 and Treatment 3 with survival rate of 28 and
22.12 respectively while Treatment 2 had the highest % survival (Table 3). Statistical analysis
revealed that there is no significant difference (P>O.OS) among the treatment mean. Fish in Treatment
2 (imported feed) had high feed conversion ratio of 1.11 which was followed by T3 and 'I'l with
average feed conversion ratio of 0.96 and 0.80, respectively. Statistical analysis revealed that there
was no significant difference (P<0.05) in the feed conversion ratio of the fishes fed with the
experimental diets.
TABLE 3 PERCF.I\TAGE S\ R\1VAL
TI T, ·1.1
Initial Stocking Rate of Juvenile per Tank 30 30 30
Final Stocking RateINumber of Juvenile per Tank 18 27 25
Percentage survival (%) 60 90 83.3
RESULTS Al\"1> DISCUSSIOI\\
The water temperature ranged from 24 to 301)C for the treatment. The PH ranged from 6.4 to 8.0 for
the treatment. The dissolved oxygen ranged from 5.0 to 1).0 rng/l for the treatment. The average feed
intake g/fish/week was shown in table 4.1.2 ahove. Fish on Treatment 1 (Local Feed) had the highest
feed intake of 3.94g followed by T2 and TJ with the intake value of 3.06 and 238 respectively.
Statistical analysis revealed that there was no sipnificant difference (P>O.05) in the overall average
feed intake of the fishes. It was noted that there was differences in the value with "1"3having the
lowest feed intake. This may be attributed to the low palatability of the feather meal which was earlier
reported by Ayanwalc (2006), who fed rabbit WIth feather meal based diet. There "vas no significant
difference (P>O.05) in the overall average weight gain of fishes. Fish on Treatment 2 (imported feed)
had the highest average weight gain of 3.39g per fish/week. Fish on Treatment I had mean weight
gain uf2.9lg while fish on T3 had the lowest weight gam of! 06g.
Weight gain, feed intake, survival rate and feed conversion ratio were measured weekly to determine
the effect of the experimental diet on the fishes. Also data were collected and analyzed using analyxis
of variance (A"lOyA).
1. Weight Gain = Final Weight Inittal \.l, eight
II. % Mortallty-l\umberofStock-l\umberufRemnanl X 100
Number of Stock
ID. feed Conversiun Ratio -Weight Gain / reed lntake.
44.56
2809.7
4
4.09
0.1
0.33
Local feed Imported feed
Crude protein 44.36 45
Energy (Kcal) 2806
Fiber % 3.89 1.5
Fat % 3.74 12
Calcium 1.35
Phosphorus 0.88 1.2
Table 2: Proximate analysis of experimental diets
Diet 3
Feather meal-based diet
Diet I Diet 2
31
Table 4 shows the production cost of experimental diet. Treatment 2 had the highest profit ofN11.55
followed Treatment 1 with N9.66 while Treatment 3 had a profit of N6.24, this is as a result of the
feather meal that was used to replace fish meal. Fish growth was influenced by various
physiochemical parameters and nutrient availability in the water body. The level of nutrient may vary
considerably. All fish species has different level of tolerance and lethal values to various
environmental conditions prevailing in the ambient water body. Temperature plays a crucial Tole in
fish production as high temperature help in high dissolve of oxygen. Huet (1972) reconunended pH of
7.0-8.0 with less fluctuation IS best tor Tilapia. According to Boyd (1979) natural water that contains
high alkalmity support more productivity than water of lower alkalmity. Tilapias are generally
hardened and have a high tolerance level for alkalinity. Feed intake of the fish were not uniform from
week I to 8. fish In Treatment I had the highest feed intake than those of Treatments 2 and 3. The
high feed Intake may be armbuted to the protein requirement by juvenile tilapia which IS within the
range of 30-35°:u crude protein (Gunasekera et al 1996).The weight gain of the fish In Treatment 2
was higher than I'reatments I and 3; the high weight gain of the fish in Treatment 2 might be
attributed to the palatability and the floating nature of the rued. (NRC 1987, Pompa 1982) reported
that high level of anti-nutrient can result in low consumption and high utilization; while treatment 3
had the lowest weight gam this may be attributed to the low palatability as a result of feather meal
inclusion in the feed. The feed conversion ratio in Treatment 2 was higher subsequently followed by
T3 and Tl. The considerable FeR recorded in this study agrees with result of (Maldonado et al
(1979), Villarreal (1980) and Pastasuco et-al (19R2» that fish reared in lower volume consumed less
food and convert far less efficiently spending greater energy on surfacing resulting in low growth
performance and vice versa. The survival was high in this experiment but the means were not
significantly different [P>0.05]. The high survival was partly attnbutable to the tolerable range of the
physiochcnncal measurements.
Ihe result or production cost showed that Treatment 2 IS economical than other treatment 111
terms of profit gam followed by Treatment 1, while Treatment 3 is lease profit gain because of the
feather mea! inclusion. However, feather meal is not as prolu rewarding in production of tilapia in
gla~!:)tank as fish meal but the sun Ivai rate is considerable. I'here "vas no significance til Ilcrcncc (P
>0.05) 111 the weight gam, Iced intake and feed conversion ratio of fish red with the expcnrnental diet.
Table 4: Production costs of experimental diets
VARlABLl:. T1 T2 TJ
Duration of the study (days) 56 56 56
Number of Fish/Treatment 30 30 30
Number of Fish/Replicate 10 10 10
Cost of I Juvenile fish (Nj 10 10 10
Cost/Kg of feed NlKg 150 350 130
Cost/g of feed 0.15 0.35 0.13
Average Feed Intake/Fish (g) ·3.94 3.06 2.38
Average Weight GainlFish (g) 2.91 3.39 2.06
Average Feed Conversion Ratio 0.8 1.11 0.96
Total feed Intake/fish (g) 31.52 24.48 19.04
Total Cost of feeding ~ 4.73 8.57 2.48
Other Variables N 2 2 2
Market Price per K.g ~) 500 500 500
Market Price per g (N) 0.5 0.5 0.5
Average l-inal Weight per fish (g) 1.3.31 27.1 16.47
Revenue N 11.66 13.55 8.24
Total Cost of production 12.15 12.35 12.13
Profit ~-N-) 9.66 11.55 6.24
--._
The highest feed cost was recorded in the imported pelletized feed while the lowest cost was observed
in hydrolyzed feather meal inclusion feed. However, hydrolyzed feather meal cannot be used as an
inclusion in Tilapia feeding ration as a source of protein because it is not economical in terms of
production cost and also has low palatability. The result obtained with use of hydrolyzed feather meal
as a fish meal replacer with aqua feeds for tilapia has been more controversial. However, Tacon et al,
(1983). Viola and Zohar (1984) and Davies et al, (1989) all reported poor growth in tilapia when fed
hydrolyzed feather meal base diet. While Bishop et-al. (1995) reported that Hydrolysed feather Meal
could replace up to 50% and 66% of the 1"15hmeal within diet for O. niloncus fingerlings and fry with
no lost of growth performance. Moreso, Tilapia ean be raised in glass tank because survival rate is
bearable depending on the management,
REFEltEl\'CES
Adcsalu, F..A (2004). Nutrition in sarothemodon gallilaeus (family Cichidae) lake Kainji, Nigeria
PhD lhesis. Lmversity of Ife, Nigeria.
Ayanwale B. A, (2006): Evaluation of feather meal as a protein source in rabbit diet. Department of
Animal production, federal University of Technology, Minna Nigeria
Bishop, C.D.,Angus, R.A., and Watts, A., (1995) The use of feather meal as a replacement for fish in
the diet of orcochrornis niloticus fry. Bioresour.Technol., 54:291 :295
Rowen, S.H (2001). Digestion & Assimilation of periphytic detrital aggregate by tilapia mossambia
Trans America Fish society, 110 pg 239345.
Boyd, C.E. 1979:Water quality in warm water fish ponds. Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn
University. Auburn, Alabama, 359p.
Davies, S.1. Williamson, J., Robinson, M. and Bateson, R.l. (1989). Practical inclusion levels of
common animal by-products in complete diets for tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicus, Peters). [n
Proc. I'hird IntI. Symp. On Feeding and Nutr. lin Fish. Toba.Japan. pp. 325-332.
EL-Sayed A.F.M 1999. Alternative dietary protem source fur farmed tilapia. Oreochrornis spp.
Aquaculture 179: 149-168.
Falayc. A.E (1992) Utilization of agro mdustnal waste as fish feedstuff 10 Nigena. In proceedings of
the 10lh Annual Conf. of fisheries Society of Nigeria. lEds.A.A.Eyo et a1.) Abeokuta, 16th 1998-
201hNov 1992. FISOI\, Nigeria pg 47 - 57.
Food and Agncultural Orgaruzation (2004). Fish Stat Plus. Aquaculture production 1950 - 2002.
Fagbenro, O. A. (1987). Yield from Monosex Culture Trails of Oreochronis Niloticus (Linnaeus) in
Small Farm Ponds. Nigeria Journal ob Basic and Applied Sciences, 2: 161 - 164.
Gunasekera, shim, K.F. and Lam, T.J 1996. Effects of dietary Protem level on sprawing performance
and aminu acid composition of eggs of Nile Tilapia. Oreochromis Niloticus. Aquaculture
146:121-134
Huet, 1972: Textbook of fish culture, Breeding and cultivation or fish. Translated by H. kohn.
finishing News (Books) Ltd. F. Survey, England, 436p.
Jauncey, K. (1998). Tilapia feeds & Feeding. Pisces Press Ltd. Stirling, Scotland 241 pp.
Maldonado R.C, Pagan-Front, f.A 1979: Evaluation of Policulture in plastic fish ponds utilizing
channel catfish (Icatalurus punctarus) and Blue tilapia (Sarothcrodon aurea) fed with bird food.
CARIB, Vol 14.36.
National Research Council (1987): Nutrient Requirement of warm water fishes. National Academy of
Science, Washington D.C ISpP.
Pantastico, J.D. Espegedara, C, Reyes. D. 1982: Report on the polyculture of Sarotherodon Niloticus
and prochilodus reticulates. KALLKASA ...\I vol 11 245-254
Pompa JJ (1982): Digestibility of selected feedstuffs & naturally occurring algal by Tilapia, PhD
Dissertation Auburn University Alabama 78 pp
Tacon, J\.G.J, Jauncey, K., Falaye, A., Pantha, M., MacGowon, 1. And Stanford. E.A (1983). The use
of meat and bone meal, hydrolyzed Feather meal in practical fry and Fingerlings diets for
Oreochromis niloticus. Tn Proc.P'.Intl.Symp. on Tilapia in Aqualculture, Fishelson, J. and Yaron,
Z. (eds) Tel Aviv lJniv. Press, Israel, pp. 356-365
Sullivan, T.W andStephenson.E.L. (1957). Effect of processing method of the utilization of
hydrolyzed poultry feathery growing chick.poultsci.36; 361-365.
Trewavas, E. (1999). Tilapia spp: Taxonomy and speciation pg 3 - 13
Villareal Z.N 1980, Culture of Tilapia and Cyprinus in Fortalcza Bennales Pisco (Peru) Documenta
VoIR, No 74.


Survival and response of Oreochromis niloticus to different feeds

http://aquaticcommons.org/23374/2/05_opt.pdf

Survival and response of Oreochromis niloticus to different feeds

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Aquatic Commons