Effect of Feeding Rate and Diet Oil Source on Growth Performance and Feed Utilization of Rabbitfish (Siganus rivulatus) Fry
Ragab A Mohammed1*,
Mohamed FA
Abdel-Aziz1, Ramadan M Abou-Zied2, Sobhy M Allam2
2Animal Production
Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Fayoum University, Egypt
Citation: Mohammed RA, Abdel-Aziz MFA, Abou-Zied RM, Allam SM (2017) Effect of Feeding Rate and Diet Oil Source on Growth Performance and Feed Utilization of Rabbitfish (Siganus rivulatus) Fry. J Fish Aqua Dev: JFAD-123. DOI:10.29011/JFAD-123/100023
1.
Abstract
This study was conducted to determine the optimum feeding rate and evaluate the total replacement of fish oil as main source of fat by linseed oil from diet on growth performance and feed utilization of rabbitfish fry. This trial was factorial (3x2) and continued for 114 days. The average initial weight (W1) of fry was 0.18±0.012 g and the average initial length (L2) was 2.76 cm±0.05. This trial tested two factors, the feeding rate (5%, 7% and 9% of fish body weight) with two diets (36.44% CP) differed in oil source (diet A contained fish oil) and (diet B contained linseed oil). The stocking density was 40 fish per m3; fry was fed twice daily at 9 am and 4 pm. The results cleared that, insignificant differences between the different of feeding rates which used in this trial regardless the diet oil source, on the other hand, the growth parameters values increased with increasing the feeding rate and the diet which contained fish oil was the best in the growth parameters compared with the other which contained linseed oil. The growth performance parameters were significantly affected by interaction between feeding rate and oil diet source. Whereas, the fish fed at the diet (A) with 9% feeding rate was obtained the highest final weight (W2), Total Gain (TG), Relative Growth Rate (RGR), and Specific Growth Rate (SGR) in all the treatments. The feed utilization parameters were significantly affected by the feeding rates regardless of diet oil source. The best Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR) was recorded by the fish fed at 5% feeding rate, the statistical analysis did not show any significant differences between the fish fed at the diet (A) and diet (B) in all the feed utilization parameters. Also, the interaction between feeding rate and diet oil source on feed utilization of rabbitfish fry appeared significant differences in all the treatments. The best FCR value was achieved with was fish fed on the diet (B) and (A) at feeding rate 5%.
2. Keywords: Fish oil; Feeding rate; Feed utilization; Growth parameters; Rabbitfish; Total replacement
1.
Introduction
2.3 Experimental Ponds
This trial was carried out in twelve concrete ponds. The dimensions of each pond were 2m length, 2m width and 1m height and the water volume of each pond was 3m3.
2.6. Aeration System of Experimental Units (Tanks)
TG, g = final weight (W2)-initial weight (W1), ADG, g/day
= average weight gain, g / experimental period, day, RGR, % = [(W2 - W1) / W1]
× 100, SGR, % /day = [(ln W2-ln W1)/t] × 100 whereas ln: is the natural
log. and t: is the time in days, SR% =
(Number of fish at end/ Number of fish at start) × 100, (HSI, %) = (liver weight/body weight) ×100 and (VSI, %) = (weight of viscera and
associated fat tissue/body weight) ×100.
4. Growth performance
As shown in (Table 4) The results
showed that, insignificant differences at level (p≤0.05)
were obtained by feeding rate in the final weight (W2), Total Weight Gain (TG), Average Daily Gain (ADG), Relative Growth Rate (RGR), Specific
Growth Rate (SGR) and Survival
Rate (SR). In relation to, some of the internal organs parameters, no
significant differences between treatments in Hepatosomatic
Index (HSI) but
Viscerosomatic Index (VSI) was significantly differed between the
treatments and both the second and the third treatment was higher in (VSI)
value than the first treatment.
Moreover, Silva et al. (2007) [42] showed that, increasing feeding rate on Colossoma macropomum with 10% BW /day is more
growth.
The highest HSI value was obtained with (B3), HSI value did not differ between (A1), (A3), (B1) and (B2) also the lowest HSI value was obtained with (A2). VSI was higher with (A2), (A3), (B2), and (B3) than (A1) and (B1).
From
these results it can be observed that, the fish fed at the diet (A) their
growth rate increased with increasing of the feeding rate from 5% to 9% of fish
body weight, this agree with Zonneveled and Fadholi (1991)
[62] who found that, the relation between growth
and feeding rate is linear. Singh et al. (2003) [37] found that, percentage weight gain increased with the increase in
feeding rates from 3 to 9% body weight per day and feeding rate of 9% body
weight per day was observed to be better for Metynnis
schreitmulleri fry fed a 35% protein diet. In the same trend
the results get on with this may be due to FO
is also considered to increase feed appeal [13,38,40,41]. This encourages
farmed fish and crustaceans to locate feed and increases consumption, thereby
reducing wastage [51].
The highest
value of PER, PPV, EER, EPV, and LR was achieved with the fish fed 5% feeding
rate followed by 7% but the lowest value of these parameters were recorded by 9%
feeding rate.
5.2 Effect of diet oil source on feed
utilization efficiency of rabbitfish (Siganus rivulatus) fry regardless the feeding rate
(Table
6) cleared that, DM,
EE and GE increased with increasing of feeding rate whereas the highest value of
DM, EE and GE was achieved by the fish fed at 9% feeding rate followed by 7%
feeding rate and 5% was the lowest in this items. This completely agree with Du et
al. (2006) [44] who found that,
the body content of CP and ash was not significantly differed by feeding rates
and DM, EE increased with increasing of the feeding rate. Moreover, Spadefish fed at higher feeding rates accumulated significantly more lipid
within the body and had an associated decrease in moisture, protein, and ash
content (Trushenski et al., 2012) [38]. However, Ghousia and Shantha (2001) [80] who found that protein increased with increasing feeding
rate, while the fat increased with decreasing feeding rate.
6.2. Effect of diet oil source on whole body chemical composition and energy content
of rabbitfish (Siganus rivulatus) fry regardless the feeding rate
Chemical analysis % on Dry matter basis |
|
Moisture (M) |
6.94 |
Dry matter (DM) |
93.06 |
Crude protein (CP) |
36.44 |
Ether extract (EE) |
13.78 |
Crude fiber (CF) |
3.10 |
Nitrogen free extract (NFE) |
39.02 |
Ash |
7.66 |
Gross energy (GE, Kcal/g)* |
5.09 |
Notice: Chemical analysis was determined according to (A.O.A.C, 1984) [19] and NFE was calculated by difference. Calculated according to NRC (1993) [20].
|
Table 1: Ingredients and a proximate chemical analysis of the experimental diets (A and B).
Fatty acid |
Diets |
|
A |
B |
|
C14:0 Myristic acid |
1.90 |
0.80 |
C16:0 Palmatic acid |
15.70 |
8.58 |
C18:0 Stearic acid |
3.70 |
4.35 |
C20:0 Arachidic acid |
ND |
1.07 |
∑SFA |
21.30 |
14.80 |
C15:1 Pentadecnoic acid |
ND |
ND |
C16:1 Palmatioleic acid |
5.60 |
1.50 |
C18:1ω-9 Oleic acid |
17.32 |
21.70 |
C20:1 ω-9 (Eicosenoic acid) |
1.20 |
0.55 |
C22:1 ω-9 (Erucic acid) |
ND |
0.24 |
∑MUFA |
24.12 |
23.65 |
C18:2ω-6 Linoleic acid |
4.30 |
38.63 |
C18:3ω-3 Linolenic acid |
ND |
15.22 |
C20:2ω-6 Eicosadienoic acid |
3.18 |
0.31 |
C20:3ω-3 Eicosatrienoic acid |
1.52 |
0.57 |
C20:4ω-6 Arashidonic acid |
3.97 |
4.08 |
C20:5ω-3 Eicosapentaenoic acid |
10.79 |
ND |
C22:2 Docosadienoic acid |
3.15 |
2.10 |
C22:6ω-3 Docosahexaenoic acid |
27.00 |
ND |
∑PUFA |
53.91 |
61.18 |
Unidentified |
0.67 |
0. 64 |
∑ ω-3 |
39.31 |
15.79 |
∑ ω-6 |
11.45 |
43.02 |
∑ω-3/ ∑ω-6 |
3.43 |
0.37 |
Notice: ND: not detected ∑SFA: sum saturated fatty acid, ∑MUFA: sum monounsaturated fatty acid, ∑PUFA: sum polyunsaturated fatty acid, ∑ω-3: sum omega three and∑ω-6: sum omega six. |
Table 2: Fatty acids composition (% of total fatty acid) of the experimental diets.
Items |
Treatments |
|||||
Diet (A) Fish oil |
Diet (B) Linseed oil |
|||||
(A1) 5% |
(A2) 7% |
(A3) 9% |
(B1) 5% |
(B2) 7% |
(B3) 9% |
|
Temperature (ºC) |
26.507±0.261 |
26.428±0.252 |
26.440±0.241 |
26.524±0.277 |
26.387±0.258 |
26.375±0.255 |
pH |
8.411±0.052 |
8.365±0.069 |
8.310±0.072 |
8.360±0.097 |
8.334±0.080 |
8.373±0.069 |
Salinity% |
33.410±0.100 |
33.420±0.110 |
33.333±0.167 |
33.46±0.150 |
33.440±0.121 |
33.455±0.100 |
EC mS/cm* |
47.100±1.00 |
47.100±0.500 |
46.400±0.400 |
47.200±0.800 |
47.200±0.200 |
47.100±0.200 |
DO mg/l |
7.265±0.335 |
7.065±0.435 |
6.295±1.105 |
6.495±0.705 |
6.920±0.780 |
6.435±0.535 |
Nitrite, mg/l |
0.036±0.017 |
0.088±0.031 |
0.066±0.002 |
0.037±0.017 |
0.025±0.012 |
0.080±0.026 |
Nitrate, mg/l |
0.102±0.026 |
0.183±0.052 |
0.160±0.057 |
0.110±0.028 |
0.105±0.039 |
0.178±0.027 |
Total ammonia, mg/l |
0.252±0.018 |
0.300±0.013 |
0.417±0.003 |
0.283±0.044 |
0.349±0.013 |
0.390±0.010 |
*mS/cm, millisiemens/centimeter
|
Table 3: Mean (±SE) of water quality parameters
Items & Treatments |
W1, g |
L2, cm |
W2, g |
TG, g |
ADG, g/day |
RGR, % |
SGR/day, % |
SR, % |
HSI, % |
VSI, % |
|
Effect of feeding rate regardless the diet oil source |
|||||||||||
Feeding rate 5% |
0.18 |
6.86 |
4.33 |
4.15 |
0.036 |
2306.93 |
2.79 |
41.87 |
3.31 |
24.33b |
|
Feeding rate 7% |
0.18 |
6.88 |
5.28 |
5.10 |
0.045 |
2837.49 |
2.96 |
39.58 |
2.89 |
28.48a |
|
Feeding rate 9% |
0.18 |
7.25 |
5.61 |
5.43 |
0.048 |
3016.66 |
3.00 |
44.37 |
3.50 |
27.56a |
|
SED* |
- |
0.340 |
0.720 |
0.640 |
0.005 |
355.330 |
0.109 |
4.570 |
0.386 |
0.750 |
|
Effect of diet oil source regardless the feeding rate |
|||||||||||
Diet (A) Fish oil |
0.18 |
7.38a |
5.69a |
5.51a |
0.048a |
3061.10a |
3.03a |
41.24 |
3.02 |
26.33 |
|
Diet (B) Linseed oil |
0.18 |
6.61b |
4.46b |
4.28b |
0.037b |
2379.60b |
2.82b |
42.63 |
3.45 |
27.24 |
|
SED* |
- |
0.155 |
0.528 |
0.461 |
0.004 |
256.200 |
0.079 |
3.720 |
0.311 |
1.235 |
|
Effect of interaction between feeding rate and diet oil source |
|||||||||||
Diet (A) & Feeding rate 5% (A1) |
0.18 |
7.19ab |
4.99ab |
4.81abc |
0.042abc |
2675.00abc |
2.90ab |
37.08 |
3.52ab |
23.96b |
|
Diet (A) & Feeding rate 7% (A2) |
0.18 |
7.28ab |
5.57ab |
5.39ab |
0.047ab |
2997.22ab |
3.00ab |
44.16 |
2.44b |
27.51a |
|
Diet (A) & Feeding rate 9% (A3) |
0.18 |
7.66a |
6.50a |
6.32a |
0.055a |
3511.10a |
3.14a |
42.50 |
3.09ab |
27.53a |
|
Diet (B) & Feeding rate 5% (B1) |
0.18 |
6.53c |
3.67b |
3.49c |
0.030c |
1938.88c |
2.64c |
46.66 |
3.10ab |
24.70b |
|
Diet (B) & Feeding rate 7% (B2)
|
0.18 |
6.48c |
5.00ab |
4.82abc |
0.042abc |
2677.77abc |
2.91ab |
35.00 |
3.43ab |
29.45a |
|
Diet (B) & Feeding rate 9% (B3) |
0.18 |
6.85bc |
4.72ab |
4.54bc |
0.039bc |
2522.22bc |
2.85bc |
46.25 |
3.91a |
27.59a |
|
SED* |
- |
0.230 |
0.827 |
0.593 |
0.005 |
329.360 |
0.094 |
5.58 |
0.415 |
1.000 |
|
(a, b and c) Average in the same column having different superscripts significantly different at (P≤0.05). *, SED is the standard error of difference
|
Table 4: Effect of feeding rate and the diet oil source on growth performance of rabbitfish (Siganus rivulatus) fry.
Items &Treatments |
FI, g/ fish |
FCR |
FCE, % |
PER |
PPV, % |
EER, g/Kcal |
EPV, % |
LR, % |
Effect of feeding rate regardless the diet oil source |
||||||||
Feeding rate 5% |
12.36c |
2.98c |
33.57a |
0.92a |
37.01a |
0.065a |
42.71a |
109.52a |
Feeding rate 7% |
20.64b |
4.05b |
24.76b |
0.67b |
27.60b |
0.048b |
33.33b |
87.37b |
Feeding rate 9% |
28.10a |
5.17a |
19.30c |
0.52c |
20.57c |
0.037c |
26.98c |
73.10c |
SED* |
2.770 |
0.170 |
0.250 |
0.008 |
0.690 |
0.0007 |
1.190 |
5.560 |
Effect of diet oil source regardless the feeding rate |
||||||||
Diet (A) Fish oil |
22.88 |
4.04 |
25.98 |
0.71 |
28.91 |
0.051 |
33.12 |
84.32 |
Diet (B) Linseed oil |
17.85 |
4.07 |
25.73 |
0.70 |
27.86 |
0.050 |
35.50 |
95.67 |
SED* |
4.300 |
0.580 |
3.700 |
0.103 |
4.280 |
0.007 |
4.110 |
9.770 |
Effect of interaction between feeding rate and diet oil source |
||||||||
Diet (A) & Feeding rate 5% (A1) |
14.22bc |
2.94c |
33.76a |
0.93a |
38.37a |
0.066a |
41.21b |
101.55b |
Diet (A) & Feeding rate 7% (A2) |
21.78b |
4.02b |
24.82b |
0.68b |
28.10c |
0.048b |
31.31d |
78.67d |
Diet (A) & Feeding rate 9% (A3) |
32.65a |
5.15a |
19.35c |
0.53c |
20.30f |
0.038c |
26.86f |
72.75f |
Diet (B) & Feeding rate 5% (B1) |
10.50c |
3.00c |
33.23a |
0.91a |
35.66b |
0.065a |
44.22a |
117.50a |
Diet (B) & Feeding rate 7% (B2) |
19.50ab |
4.04b |
24.71b |
0.67b |
27.09d |
0.048b |
35.35c |
96.07c |
Diet (B) & Feeding rate 9% (B3) |
23.56b |
5.19a |
19.25c |
0.52c |
20.85e |
0.037c |
27.11e |
73.44e |
SED* |
2.490 |
0.290 |
0.370 |
0.010 |
0.014 |
0.001 |
0.014 |
0.054 |
(a, b, c, d, e and f) Average in the same column having different superscripts significantly different at (P≤0.05). *, SED is the standard error of difference. |
Table 5: Effect of feeding rate and the diet oil source on feed utilization efficiency of rabbitfish (Siganus rivulatus) fry
Items & Treatments |
Moisture (M, %) |
Dry matter (DM, %) |
Crude protein (CP, %) |
Ether extract (EE, %) |
Ash, % |
Gross energy (GE, Kcal/g) |
Start |
80.70 |
19.30 |
50.17 |
9.75 |
34.57 |
3.68 |
Effect of feeding rate regardless the diet oil source |
||||||
Feeding rate 5% |
63.86a |
36.14b |
40.61 |
43.50b |
10.57 |
6.32b |
Feeding rate 7% |
61.75ab |
38.25ab |
40.97 |
47.34ab |
9.63 |
6.75ab |
Feeding rate 9% |
60.51b |
39.49a |
39.18 |
51.01a |
9.22 |
7.00a |
SED* |
1.16 |
1.16 |
0.87 |
2.84 |
1.13 |
0.24 |
Effect of diet oil source regardless the feeding rate |
||||||
Diet (A) Fish oil |
63.25a |
36.75b |
40.60 |
44.68b |
10.76a |
6.47 |
Diet (B) Linseed oil |
60.84b |
39.16a |
39.90 |
49.89a |
8.85b |
6.90 |
SED* |
0.990 |
0.990 |
0.806 |
2.435 |
0.734 |
0.217 |
Effect of interaction between feeding rate and diet oil source |
||||||
Diet (A) & Feeding rate 5% (A1) |
65.51a |
34.49f |
41.64a |
40.23d |
12.17a |
6.11c |
Diet (A) & Feeding rate 7% (A2) |
63.57b |
36.43e |
41.65a |
42.71cd |
11.09ab |
6.35c |
Diet (A) & Feeding rate 9% (A3) |
60.67d |
39.33c |
38.53b |
51.10ab |
9.02bc |
6.97ab |
Diet (B) & Feeding rate 5% (B1) |
62.22c |
37.78d |
39.57ab |
46.78bc |
8.98bc |
6.54bc |
Diet (B) & Feeding rate 7% (B2) |
59.94f |
40.06a |
40.30ab |
51.98a |
8.16c |
7.15a |
Diet (B) & Feeding rate 9% (B3) |
60.36e |
39.64b |
39.83ab |
50.93ab |
9.41bc |
7.03a |
SED* |
0.017 |
0.017 |
1.000 |
1.730 |
0.850 |
0.180 |
(a, b, c, d, e and f) Average in the same column having different superscripts significantly different at (P≤0.05). *SED is the Standard Error of Difference. |
Table 6: Effect of feeding rate and the diet oil source on whole body chemical composition and energy content of rabbitfish (Siganus rivulatus) fry.
5.
Lam TJ (1974) Siganids: their biology and mariculture potential. Aquacult 3: 325-354.
20. NRC (1993) National Research
Council, Nutrient requirements of fish. National Academy Press, Washington DC
USA.
25. Jumat S, Mamot S, Suria R, Mohamad
A (2006) Oil and Fat Analysis, UKM Press,
Bangi, Malaysia.
28. SPSS (2007) Statistical Package for
Social Science (for Windows). Release 16 Copyright ©, SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA.
31. Meade JW (1989) Aquaculture
Management. New Branch. York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
33.
Lawson TB
(1995)
Fundamentals of Aquaculture Engineering. New York: Chapman & Hall: 355.
34.
ANZECC (2000) (Australian and New
Zealand Environment and Conservation Council) and ARMCANZ (Agriculture and
Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand), Australian
Guidelines for Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting. National Water Quality
Management Strategy Paper No. 7, ANZECC and ARMCANZ, Canberra.
52.
FAO (1986) FAO Fisheries Technical Paper-142, the
production of fish meal and oil. Fisheries Technical Division, Food &
Agric. Organisation, Rome: 63.
54. El-Tawil NE, Amer TN (2010) Effect of different dietary oil sources on fish
performance, feed utilization and body composition of Red Tilapia (Oreochromis sp.) fry.
Abbasa Int J Aquacult Spicial Issue 3rd
Sci Conf, Al Azhar Uni., Cairo 17-18 October 2010 161-177.
55.
Lim C, Aksoy MY, Davis A, Klesius P (2008)
Effects
of varied dietary lipid sources tested in tilapia study. Global Aquacult
Advocate 67-70.
60. Peng S, Chen L, Qin JG, Hou J, Yu N, et al. (2008) Effects of replacement
of dietary fish oil by soybean oil on growth performance and liver biochemical
composition in juvenile black sea bream (Acanthopagrus
schlegeli). Aquacult 276: 154-161.
69.
Jobling M (1986) Gastrointestinal overload-a problem with formulated feed? Aquacult 51: 257-263.
70. Hung SSO, Lutes PB (1987) Optimum feeding rate of hatchery-product juvenile white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) at 20°C. Aquacult 65: 307-317.
75. El-Dakar AY (1999) Effect of different feeding levels on
performance of rabbitfish (Siganus revulatus)
fingerlings. Egyptian J Aquat Biol & Fisheries 3: 35-54.
76.
El-Sayed AM, Mostafa KA, Mohammadi JS,
Dohaimi AA, Kayid M (1993) Intensive culture of rabbitfish in Qatar:
Effects of stocking density and feeding level on growth rates and feed
utilization of (Siganus canaliculatus).
Pro. 1st Int. Symp. On Aquacult.
Technol. & Invest. Opport. Ministry of Agric & Water Riyadh Saudi
Arabia: 109-117.
77.
El-Meligi UAZE (2003) Studies on production
of marine fish in North Sinai. M.Sc., Fac. Environ. Agric. Sci., Suez-Canal
Uni.
79. El-Sayed AM (2002) Effects of density and feeding levels on growth and feed efficiency
of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus L.)
fry. Aquacult Res 33: 621-626.