Ninety juveniles of Tilapia niloticus were fed on three different composed diets, the locally compounded feeds with fish meal inclusion, (control), the second treatment were fed on imported feed (2) and treatment (3) with locally compounded feed with feather meal inclusion. At the end of eight weeks, it was found out that fish under treatment (1) had the highest feed intake than those of treatment 2 and 3. The weight gained in treatment 2 was higher than 1 and 3. The survival rate were high in this experiment but the means were not significantly different (P>0.05). (The higher survival rates were attributable to the range of the physiochemical measurement). The Wight gained was attributed to the palatability of the floating nature of the feed. The treatment 3 had the lowest weight gained which might be due to the low palatability as a result of feather meal inclusion in the feed. The feed conversion ratio in treatment 2 was highest, subsequently followed by treatments 2 and 3 respectively

Ijimakinde, B.

Ogunbona, A.A.

Aquatic Commons

Introduction
A quaculture is the rearing of water organisms that are beneficial to man-kind in a confined or controlled environment.One of the great advantages of Tilapia for aquacultures is that they feed on a low trophic level. Tilapia are currentlydivided into three major taxonomic groups based primarily on their reproductive behavior which are the substrate
incubator (Tilapia spp) maternal mouth brooder (Oreochromis spp) and paternal or bi-parental mouth brooder (Sarotherdon
spp). The members of the genius Oreochromis feed on algae, aquatic plant, small invertebrate, detrital material and the as-
sociated bacterial films. This provides an advantage to farmer because the fish can be reared in extensive system that depends
upon the natural productivity of a water body or in intensive system that can be operated with lower feeds cost (Jauncey,
1998).
Tilapia species whose taxonomy has undergone some changes are known to feed on a wide variety of food material
(Trewavas 1999). Bowen (2001) reported that Tilapia species may ingest animal material but usually doesn't constitute a
significant proportion of the fish total food intake. The diets of Tilapia species have been reported to vary with fish size and
time or season of the year (Adesalu 2004).
Fish is one of the cheapest sources of animal protein when compared to beef and chicken. Thus, it is widely consumed
by both rich and poor and also the demand for fish outstripped its supply. Fish farming has shown remarkable 20% increase
in growth per year for the past six years, with highest growth in small-to-medium enterprises, and a number of large scales
intensively managed fish farms, Together with Egypt and SouthAfrica, Nigeria is now one of the most significant and strongly
growing aquaculture producers in the region. Nigeria'S fast growing in aquaculture is a replication of that observed in other
regions where the market has been a long in driving growth (FAO, 2004). Hence tile study is designed to determine the re-
sponse ofT niloticus to different type.sof feed, fed on imported pelletized feed, locally compounded feedand Feather Meal as
Inclusion with the feed in glass tank, since it is known that Tilapia are mostly reared in earthen pond and they feed on natural
diets, which is a free supply from the pond. .
The objective of the project:
1. ToevaluatethegrowthperformanceofjuvenileT niloticus inglasstank.
2. TodeterminethesurvivalrateofT. niloticusfedon importedfeed,locallyfeed and feathermealinclusionfeedrespectively.
Abstract
Ninetyjuveniles of Tilapia niloticus werefed on three different composed diets, the locally compoundedfeeds withfish meal inclusion,
the control, the second treatment werefed on imported feed (2) and treatment (3) with locally compounded feed with feather meal
inclusion. At the end of eight weeks it wasfound out thatfish under treatment (1) had the highest feed intake than those of treatment 2
and 3. The weight gained in treatment 2 was higher than 1 and 3. The survival rate were high in this experiment but the means were
not significantly different (P>O.05). (The higher survival rates were attributable to the range of the physiochemical measurement). The
weight gained was attributed to the palatability of thefloating nature of thefeed. The treatment 3 had the lowest weight gained which
might be due to the lowpalatability as a result affeather meal inclusion in thefeed. Thefeed conversion ratio in treatment 2 was highest
subsequentlyfollowed treatments 2 and 3 respectively. ..
Keywords: Tilapia niloticus,feather meal, survival rate, growth parameters.
Ogunbona,A. A. / Ijimakinde, B.
The response of Tilapia niloticus fed on different feeds composition
,
345
P li Number of stock - number of remnant 100ercentage marta tty = x
Number of stock11.
Weight Gain = FinalWeight - Initial WeightI.
Data Collection and Analysis
The weight gain, feed intake, survival rate and feed conversion ratio were measured on a weekly basis to determine the effect
of the experimental diet on the fishes. Also data were collected and analyzed using analysis of variance.
NA" - Not available.
100Kg
0.50,.;;;--;;--........- -1--- 0 ---
100Kg
36~--~~I-----O----------~--~
5
5
0.25
0.250::--------'0.50
18
5
18---------.
Wheatoffal
Maize
Diet 3
Feather meal inclusion feeds'
12
Ingredient
Table 1: Composition of experimental diets gl100g.
Diet 1
local feed
10
• Stocking of experimental fish: Ninety juveniles of Tilapianiloticus were used for the experiments which were pur-
chased from a reputable farm at Badagry. Each of the tanks replicate contained ten (lO)juveniles oftilapia niloticus
and was randomly assigned to experimental diets treatment.
• Physical and chemical parameters: Physio-chemical parameters were monitored and analyzed with Bauch and
Lamb field analysis kit. Parameters such as Water pH, Dissolved Oxygen, Temperature and Ammonia were ana-
lyzed. Dissolved Oxygen was improved by using aerator for proper and effective circulation of oxygen in all the
glass tanks for the fishes. Also, changing of water was done every two (2) days by siphoning and adding new water
to prevent pollution.
• Feeding of the fish: The fish was fed with the experimental diets daily for the duration of two months. And they
were properly fed. 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 (atI4.5%
inclusion).The feed was served at a fixed point in the glass tank at each feeding time and was served twice daily (in
the morning and in the evening). The total weight of feed consumed per each feeding trial and total body weight
of fish were recorded every week.
• Experimental Design: Complete randomized design (CRD) method was used. The experiment consists of three
treatments and three replicate.
• Composition of experimental diets: The choice of the ingredients was based on the content of the essential dietary
nutrient and their availability and price. The local feed was prepared using the following ingredient: fish meal,
maize, wheat, offal, groundnut cake, soya bean, blood meal, spaghetti, salt, fish premix and vitamin C while the
feather meal inclusion feed contained the entire ingredient in the local feed with the inclusion of hydrolyzed feather
meal and the imported feed was brought from the market at Sabo, Ikorodu.
Materials and Methods
The project was carried out at the Fisheries Technology Department, School of Agriculture, Lagos State Polytechnic Ikorodu
Campus. The experiment was carried out in three (3) glass tank, each divided into three (3) replicate having a volume of
O.178m3• Before the commencement of the experiment, the tanks were washed, cleaned and filled with water to about three
'" quarter of its volume.
PROCEEDINGS OF 28TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE, NOV. 25-30, 2013
347
Table 4: Survival rate per treatment/week.
• Table4.1.3 shows the average weight gain in (g)/fishlweek of the treatment. Statistical analysis revealed that there
was no significant difference (P>0.05) in the overall average weight gain of fishes. (Appendix II), Fish on Treat-
ment 2 (imported feed) had the highest average weight gain of 3.39g per fish/week. Fish on Treatment 1had aver-
age weight gain of2.91g while fish on T3 had the lowest weight gain of2.06g.
• Survival rate: C
3.39 2.062.91
Table 3: Average weight gain (g)/tish/week.
Table 4.1.2: Average feed intake (G) IFish/Week
• Average feed intake:
:z:c:
>-i
:;0....
>-i....o:z:
SIP
"r:I-(I)
::t:
"r:I
tlI
tlIe
>-i
tlI
o
::t:
Zo
t"'
• The average feed intake g/fish/week was. show~ i~ table..4.1.2 above. Fish on Treatment 1 (Local Feed) had the g
highest feed intake of 3.94g followed by T2and T3with the intake value of 3.06 and 2.38 respectively. Statistical 0<
analysis revealed that there was no significant difference (P>0.05) in the overall average feed intake of the fishes..
It was noted that there was differences in the value with T3 having the lowest feed intake. This may be attributed
to the low palatability of the feather meal which was earlier reported by Ayanwale (2006), who fed rabbit with
feather meal based diet.
• Averageweight gain (g):
• Water temperature: The water temperature ranged from 24 to 30°C for the treatment.
• pH of water: The pH ranged from 6.4 to 8.0 for the treatment.
• Dissolved oxygen: The dissolved oxygen ranged from 5.0 to 9.0 mgll for the treatment.
Results and Discussion
Physio-chemical parameters
..... '.
Feed Conversion Ratio =Weight Gain / Feed Intake.111.
PROCEEDINGS OF 28TH FISON ANNUAL CONFERENCE, NOV. 25-30, 2013
Discussion
Fish growth is 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
The above table shows the production cost of experimental diet. Treatment 2 had the highest profit ofN 11.55 followed
Treatment 1with N9.66 while Treatment 3 had a profit ofN6.24, this is as a result of the feather meal that was used to replace
fish meal.
Variable Tl T2 T3
Duration of the study (days) 56 56 56
Number of fishilreatment
., 30 30 30 J~
Number of fish/replicate 10 10 10
ICost of 1 juvenile fish (N) 10 , 10 10 1
Cost/Kg of feed N/kg 150 350 130
LCostlg of feed 0.15 0.35 0.13 'l
Average feed intake/fish (g) 3.94 3.06 2.38
IAverage weight gainlfish (g) 2.91 3.39 2.()6 ~I
Average feed conversion ratio 0.8 1.11 0.96
JTotal feed intake!fish (g) ,,: i', 31~52:'~'l 24.48 19.04 I
Total cost of feeding N 4.73 8.57 2.48
lOther variables N 2 2 2 I
Market price per kg (N) 500 500 500
fMarket price per 9 (N) 0.5 0.5 0.5 .'1
Average final weight per fish (g) 23.31 27.1 16.47
JRevenueN 11.66 13.55 8.24 I
Total cost of production 12.15 12.35 12.13
IProfit (N) 9.66 11.55 6.24 ~
• The table shown above contained the feed conversion ratio of the fishes feed with the experimental diets. Fish on
Treatment 2 (imported feed) had high feed conversion ratio of 1.11which was followed byT3 and T 1with average
feed conversion ratio of 0.96 and 0.80 respectively. Statistical analysis revealed that there was no significant differ-
ence (P<O.05)in the feed conversion ratio of the fishes fed with the experimental diets. (Appendix III)
Table 4.1.6: Production costs of experimental diets:
Week Tl T2 T3-
1 - 1.38 0.98 - 0.41 12 0.97 2.09 0.41
3 0.97 0.95 0.81 I
4 0.60 1.54 1.58
5 1.05 0.79 0.56_j-
6 0.53 0.76 0.81
f7 0.40 1;01 1.54
8 0.47 0.83 1.42
LEX 6.37 8.95 7.65 .I
X 0.80 1.11 0.96
...,
C;; Table 6: Average feed conversion ratio/week.
::r:...,
tzj
tzj
t:)..,
tzj
o
::r:zo
t""oo
0<
• Average feed conversion ratio:
z
c:::..,
ld......,....oz
SIP
25
T~ T2
30 30
27
10%
Percentage survival rate 60% 90% 83.3%
• Table 4.1.4 above shows the survival rate of the fishes fed in the experimental diet. Fish on Treatment 3 had the
highest survival rate of28.5 followed by Treatment 2 and Treatment 3 with survival rate of28 and 22.12 respec-
tively while Treatment 2 had the highest percentage survival rate as shown in the table 4.5. Statistical analysis
revealed that there is no significant difference (P>0.05) among the treatment mean. (Appendix IV).
Table 5: Percentage survival rate.
PROCEEDINGS OF 28TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE, NOV. 25-30, 2013
349
.REFERENCES
Adesalu, E. A. (2004). Nutrition in S. gallilaeus in Lake Kainji. PhD Thesis, University of Ife, Nigeria.
Ayanwale B. A. (2006). Evaluation of feather meal as a protein source in rabbit diet. Federal University of Technology, Minna.
Bardach, J. E., Ryther, 1.H. and Mclarney, W.O. (1972). Aquaculture (farming and husbandry of freshwater and marine organisms), 358.
Bishop, C. D., Angus, R.A. and Watts, A. (1995). The use of feather meal as a replacement for fish in the diet of O. niloticus fry.
Bioresources Technology, 54:291-295.
Bowen, S. H. (2001). Digestion and assimilation ofperiphytic detrital aggregate by tilapia mossambia. Trans America Fish Society,
1l0pp 239-345.
Boyd, C. E. (1979): Water quality in warm water fish ponds. Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn University, Alabama, 359p.
Davies, S. J., Williamson, J., Robinson, M. and Bateson, R. J. (1989). Practical inclusion levels of common animal by-products in
complete diets for tilapia (0. mossambicus). Proc. 3rd Intl. Symp. on Feeding & Nutr. in Fish, Toba, Japan, 325-332.
El-Sayed A. F.M. (1999). Alternative dietary protein source for farmed tilapia. Oreochromis spp. Aquaculture 179: 149-168.
Falaye, A. E. (1992). Utilization of agro industrial waste as fish feedstuff in Nigeria. Proceedings, 10th FISON Annual Conference,
Abeokuta,47-57.
FAO (2004). Fish Statatistics Plus Aquaculture Production 1950-2002.
Fagbenro, O. A. (1987). Yield from monosex culture trails of Oreochronis niloticus in small farm ponds. Nigeria Journal of Basic and
Applied Sciences, 2: 161-164.
Gunasekera, K. F. and Lam, T. J. (1996). Effects of dietary protein level on spawning, performance and amino-acid composition of eggs
of Nile tilapia. Aquaculture 146: 121-134.
Huet, (1972). Textbook of Fish Culture, Breeding and Cultivation ofFish. Trns. H. Kohn. Surrey: Fishing News (Books) Ltd. 436p.
Jauncey, K. (1998). Tilapia Feeds and Feeding. Stirling, Scotland: Pisces Press Ltd. 24 Ipp.
Maldonado, R. C, Pagan-Front, F.A (1979). Evaluation ofpoliculture in plastic fish ponds utilizing channel catfish (Icatalurus punctatus)
and blue tilapia (Sarotherodon 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 78pp.
Recommendation
More research should be carried out on how to improve method of processing local feed for better utilization .
Conclusion
There was no significance difference (P >0.05) in the weight gain, feed intake and feed conversion ratio offish fed with the
experimental diet. 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
obtainedwith 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
hydrolyzedfeather meal base diet. While Bishop et al. (1995) reported that hydrolyzed feather meal could replace up to 50%
and 66% of the fish meal within diet for 0. niloticus fingerlings and fry with no lost of growth performance. More so, Tilapia
can be raised in glass tank because survival rate is bearable depending on the management.
conditions prevailing in the ambient water body. Temperature plays a crucial role in fish production as high temperature help
in high dissolve of oxygen. Huet (1972) recommended pH range of 7.0 - 8.0 with less fluctuation is best for Tilapia. Ac-
cording to Boyd (1979) natural water that contains high alkalinity support more productivity than water of lower alkalinity.
Tilapias are generally hardened and have a high tolerance level for alkalinity. The feed intake of the fish were not uniform
from week one [I] to eight [8], fish under Treatment I had the highest feed intake than those of Treatment 2 and Treatment 3. .......
The high feed intake observed among the treatment might be attributed to the protein requirement by juvenile tilapia which Z
is within the range of30-45% crude protein (Gunasekera et aI., 1996). The weight gain of the fish in Treatment 2 was higher c
than Treatment 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 feed. (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 gain this might be attributed to the low palatability as a result of feather 0
meal inclusion in the feed. Z
The feed conversion ratio in Treatment 2 was higher subsequently followed by T3 and Tl. The considerable FCR ll?
'T1
recorded in this study agrees with result of (Maldonado et al (1979), Villarreal (1980) and Pastastico et al. (1982» that fish (i;
reared in lower volume consumed less food and convert far less efficiently spending greater energy on surfacing resulting in ::I:
low growth performance and vice versa. The survival rate were high in this experiment but the means were not significantly ~
different [P>0.05].The high survival rates were partly attributable to the tolerable range of the physiochemical measurement ~
during the experiment. The result of production cost showed that Treatment 2 is economical than other treatment in terms of >-'l
profit gain followed by Treatment I, while Treatment 3 is lease profit gain because of the feather meal inclusion. However, ~
feather meal is not as profit rewarding in production oftilapia in glass tank as fish meal but the survival rate is considerable. ::I:
Zo
t"'o
C')
><
PROCEEDINGS OF 28TH FISON ANNUAL CONFERENCE, NOV. 25-30, 2013
350
\
Pantastico, J. B., Espegedara, C. and Reyes. D. (1982). Report on the polyculture of Sarotherodon niloticus and Prochilodus reticulates
Kalikasan, 111245-254.
Pompa J. J. (1982). Digestibility ofselectea{'~stuffs and natlHally occurring aigal by tilapia, PhD, Auburn University, Alabama. 78.
Sullivan, T. W and Stephenson. E. L. (1957). Effect of processing method of the utilization of hydrolyzed poultry feathery growing
chicks. Poult. Sci. 36,361-365.
Tacon, A. G. J., Jauncey, K., Falaye, A., Pantha, M., MacGowon, I.and Stanford. E. A. (1983). The use of meat and bonemeal,
hydrolyzed feather meal in practical fry and fingerlings diets for Oreochromis niloticus. Fishelson, J. and Varon, Z. (eds)
Proc.l st. inti. Symp. on Tilapia in Aqualculture, Tel Aviv Univ. Press, 356-365.
Trewavas, E. (1999). Tilapia spp: Taxonomy and speciation, 3-13.
Villareal, Z. N. 1980, Culture oftilapia and Cyprinus in Fortaleza Benoales Pisco (peru) Documenta. 8/74.
PROCEEDINGS OF 28TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE, NOV. 25-30,2013


The response of Tilapia niloticus fed on different feeds composition

http://aquaticcommons.org/24653/2/081_opt.pdf

The response of Tilapia niloticus fed on different feeds composition

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Aquatic Commons