Journal of Aquaculture & Fisheries Category: Aquaculture Type: Review Article

Growth of Clarias gariepinus Reared in Earthen Ponds in Calabar, South south, Nigeria under Duo Nutritional Diet

Ajah PO1*, Edeghe AI2 and Enin UI3
1 Department Of Fisheries And Aquaculture, Faculty Of Oceanography, University Of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria
2 Fisheries And Aquaculture Unit, Cross River Basin Development Authority, Calabar, Nigeria
3 Fisheries And Aquaculture Unit, Institute Of Oceanography, University Of Calabar, Nigeria

*Corresponding Author(s):
Ajah PO
Department Of Fisheries And Aquaculture, Faculty Of Oceanography, University Of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria
Email:ajapaulo60@gmail.com

Received Date: Jul 09, 2022
Accepted Date: Jul 18, 2022
Published Date: Jul 25, 2022

Abstract

Clarias gariepinus cultured in earthen ponds at three stocking densities-3 fingerlings/m2; 5 fingerlines/m2 and 10 fingerlings/m2 were fed both commercial and formulated diet. Each stocking density was replicated thrice per feed type. At the 8th week of culture, the daily weight gains of fish fed with commercial feed were not significantly (P>0.05) different from that fed with formulated diet. The final weights and condition factor (C.F) for commercially fed were 32.71g (0.93); 31.66g (0.68) and 32.0g (0.85) at 3, 5 and 10 fingerlings/m2 respectively, while those fed formulated feed were 34.43g (0.80), 35.33g (0.47), and 35.33g (0.90) respectively. Again, no significant (P>0.05) differences existed among them even at day-70. Though survival rate was highest in ponds stocked with 3 fingerlings /m2 and fed with commercial feed and lowest in ponds stocked with 10 fingerlings/m2 and fed with formulated feed 5 fingerlings /m2 with formulated diet is recommended due to optimal final weight, SGR and moderate survival.

Keywords

Clarias gariepinus; Earthen pond; Feed; Stocking density

Introduction

The African catfish, Claries gariepinus has been reported to be the most preffered cultured fish in Nigeria. [1] In a fish demand survey in Nigeria reported that the catfish outclassed Tilapia, carps and other freshwater species by a wide margin. It has also been reported that it is the most cultured in Africa and third in the world [2, 3].

[4] Posited that Nigeria is the highest producer of this clariid catfish in the world and that about 90% of farmed fish is Claries gariepinus. The importance attached to the culture of C. gariepinus in Nigeria is widely due to its high growth rate, ability to withstand stress, ability to spawn easily, ability to thrive under high density culture and good feed conversion tendencies. The fish also has excellent marketability profile. Feeding usually represents the single most expensive production cost in aquaculture. Dependence on imported or commercially compounded feed increases the cost of production. Besides the cost, logistic challenges sometimes result in the unavailability of commercial feeds. Consequently, the development of formulated feed from locally available feed stuff that will satisfy the nutritional requirement of the fish will be a major contribution to the need to produce good quality matured fish. This research was designed with the low-income fish farmer in mind. The overall objective is to compare the growth and feed utilization indices of fishes fed with commercial feed with those fed with formulated feed from locally available feed stuff.

Materials And Methods

Five experimental ponds of dimension 9m x 4m x 1m located at the fish farm complex, Institute of Oceanography, University of Calabar, Calabar (4o 56’N; 8o 22 ‘E) were partitioned by means of Indian bamboos and screened by means of mosquito nets into four small ponds each of dimension 4.5m x 2m x 1m. A total of eighteen ponds of 4.5 x 2m x 1m were used for the experiment. The ponds were drained, desilted, and limed using agricultural lime (CaO) at the rate of 200kg/ha [5]. The ponds were then impounded with water from the farm’s reservoirs to a pond level of 0.75m.

Experimental design and stocking of ponds: Three stocking densities: 3 fingerlings/m2; 5 fingerlings/m2 and 10 fingerlings/m2 were assigned to three ponds and fed with commercial feed. Each treatment was in triplicate. Another three stocking densities 3 fingerlings/m2, 5 fingerlings/m2 and 10 fingerlings/m2 were assigned to 3 other ponds and feed locally formulated diet of similar protein level with the commercial feed. The trial with formulated feed was also in triplicates. The ponds fed with commercial feed were labeled CF3I, CF3II, CF3III, CF5I, CF5II, CF5III, CF10I, CF10II, and CF10III, while those for formulated fed were labeled: FF3I, FF3II, FF3III; FF5I, FF5II, FF5III; FF10I, FF10II and FF10III.

Feed formulation: The following feed ingredients were used for the formulation of experimental feed - Blood meal, Groundnut meal, Soyabean meal, Yellow maize, Fish, Meat, Bone meal, Wheat offal, Palm oil, Vitamin premix, Common salt, Binder (Ogi).

The protein levels to be prepared were 55%, 45% and 42% which corresponded with the protein levels of the commercial feed used. The percentage inclusion for each feed ingredient to prepare the above protein levels was calculated using the Pearson Square method described by [6]. The processed ingredients were mixed manually by adding one ingredient at a time. The entire mixture was held together by a small quantity of a binder (pap) and molded into balls and sun dried.

The formulated feed was analysed for proximate composition at the Biochemistry Laboratory of the University of Calabar, Calabar.

Routine Management Techniques: The experimental ponds were maintained by ensuring that the weeds were removed from the water manually. The grass around the ponds was kept low to prevent snakes and other reptiles from being attracted to the pond.

The following water parameters were monitored thrice per week – Temperature (°C); pH, dissolved oxygen (Do) and transparency. While the nitrate, nitrite ammonia, phosphate, salinity, conductivity, and chlorophyll a were monitored monthly.

The commercial feed was fed to designated ponds by broadcast method at the rate 5% of fish body weight per day in two rations between 6.00 – 7.30am and 4.30 – 6.00pm daily. The formulated feed was also fed to designated ponds by breaking the balls and broadcasting the feed into the ponds at same time period as in commercial feed.

Growth Monitoring: Length and weight measurements of fish from each pond were carried out at 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 10 weeks intervals. The ponds were dragged by a means of a small drag net and 10% of the total number of fingerlings stocked per pond caught and measured. The ponds were finally drained after 10 weeks to determine the mortality rates. The length and weight measurements of individual fish were also taken.

Determination of Growth and feed utilization indices:

  • Growth Rate:

The Growth rate was determined using the formular described by [7].

Weight gain (DW) = Final weight (wt)-Initial weight (wo)

                                                         Time (t)

Specific Growth Rate = Ln Wt – In Wo x 100                                                              

                                                     T

  • Feed Utilization Parameters:

This was computed according to the formula by [8]: The parameters computed were feed conversion Ratio (FER), Protein Efficiency Ratio (PER); and feed efficiency (FE).

  • Survival Rate:

This was determined using the formula. Survival Rate (SR) = Number of fish harvested x 100

                                                                                                         Number of fish stocked

Results

Water Parameters

The result of the water parameters monitored is presented in Table 1. Pond 4 (FF10I, FF10II, FF10III) recorded the lowest dissolved oxygen (DO) of 4.344±0.155 mg/l. While pond 1 (CF3I, CF3II, CF3III) recorded the highest DO value of 6.69 mg/l.

The pH was lowest in pond 5 (FF3II, FF3III, FF5II, FF5III) with 6.715±0.176 and highest in pond I, 7.305 mg/l. Pond I also recorded the lowest temperature and transparency values of 25.4 ?C and 0.385 respectively.

The result of water parameters monitored on the 6th week of culture is presented in Table 2. Nitrite was generally low in all the ponds (0.000 – 0.001). The conductivity, sulphate, ammonia, nitrate, phosphate, and chlorophyll value were also within acceptable ranges [9, 10].

Physical Parameters

Pond

DO(mg/l)

pH

Temp. (oC)

Visibility (m)

1

6.901

7.305

25.444

0.385

CF3I, CF3II, CF3III

± 0.312

± 0.140

± 0.199

± 0.017

2

6.596

6.955

26.967

0.544

CF10I, CF10II, CF10III, FF3I

± 0.120

± 0.093

± 0.199

± 0.018

3

6.148

6.981

26.389

0.574

CF5I, CF5II, CF5III, FF5I

± 0.276

±0.141

± 0.339

± 0.014

4

4.344

7.226

27.50

0.596

FF10I, FF10II, FF10III

± 0.155

± 0.386

± 1.02

± 0.0229

5

5.97

6.715

28.16

0.586

FF3II, FF3III, FF5II, FF5III

± 1.70

± 0.176

± 1.04

± 0.018

Table 1: Mean and standard error of water parameters monitored 

 

Nutrients

Parameters/Ponds

 

CF3I, CF3II, CF3III

CF10I, CF10II, CF10III, FF3I

CF5I, CF5II, CF5III, FF5I

FF10I, FF10II, FF10III

FF3I, FF3II,

FF5II, FF5III

1

2

3

4

5

Conductivity (µs/cm)

106

89

94

115

103

Sulphate (mg/l)

5.332

4.497

4.729

5.785

5.182

Ammonia (mg/l)

0.364

0.761

0.324

0.349

0.657

Nitrite (mg/l)

0.000

0.001

0.001

0.000

0.001

Nitrate (mg/l)

0.857

0.507

0.427

0.554

0.774

Phosphate (mg/l)

0.012

0.016

0.009

0.013

0.008

Chlorophyll (µg/l)

50

50

70

 

70

60

Table 2: Result of water parameters of earthen ponds monitored on the 6th week 

Samples

Moisture

Protein

Ash

Crude fat

Crude fiber

Carbo-hydrate

Caloric value

A

Commercial

Feed (*45%)

 

31.91±0.62

 

42.6±0.7

 

3.1±0.1

 

9.94±0.06

 

0.54±0.03

 

12.54±0.01

 

309.66±2.42

B

Formulated

Feed (*55%)

 

33.94±0.15

 

44.50±0.61

 

3.6±0.1

 

9.33±0.14

 

0.81±0.01

 

8.06±0.50

 

294.25±1.67

C

Formulated

Feed (*45%)

 

33.86±1.15

 

42.6±0.79

 

2.83±0.05

 

9.87±0.05

 

0.66±0.05

 

10.82±1.94

 

302.57±0.32

D

Formulated

Feed (*42%)

 

30.96±0.01

 

41.96±0.03

 

2.31±0.01

 

9.73±0.06

 

0.57±0.003

 

15.02±0.05

 

315.51±0.32

Table 3: Proximate composition of formulated and commercial feed (in mg/100g) by calculation

        *CP – crude protein

  • The protein content of the commercial feed which was labelled by the manufacturers to be 45% turned out to be 42.6±0.7 upon analysis.
  • The crude protein values of formulated feed calculated using Pearson’s square method to be 55%, 45% and 42% for samples B, and D after proximate analysis became 44.50±0.61%; 42.6±0.79 and 41.96±0.03, respectively.
  • Analysed values of moisture content, ash, crude fat, crude fibre, carbohydrate, and caloric value were all within recommended ranges for the culture of gariepinus.

Growth and Survival Studies

The mean length (XL) and mean weight (Xwt) of fish stocked at 3 fingerlings/m2 and fed with commercial feed (ponds CF3I, CF3II and CF3III) and formulated feed (Ponds FF3I, FF3II and FF3III) are presented in Table 4.

The mean length (XL) and mean weight (Xwt) of fish stocked at 5 fingerlings/m2 and fed commercial feed (ponds CF5I, CF5II, CF5III) and formulated feed (pond FF5I, FF5II, FF5III) are presented in Table 5 while the mean length (XL) and mean weight (Xwt) of fish stocked at 10 fingerlings/m2 and fed commercial feed (ponds CF10I, CF10II AND CF10III) and formulated feed (ponds FF10I, FF10II, FF10III) is presented in table 6.

  • Daily weight gain (DW) and Specific Growth rates (SGR).

Table 7 shows the DW and SGR determined on the 56th day of culture.

  • Survival Rate

The survival rate is presented in table 8.

  • The quantity of feed used in all the experimental ponds are presented in Tables 9 -11.

Table 12 shows the total weight gain for fish commercial and formulated feeds.

The result of the FCR is presented in Table 13 while the summary of results for study is presented in Table 14. 

 

Period (days)

Ponds/Xl&xwt

 

 

1

 

28

 

56

 

70

Condition factor

I – Initial

F – Final

 

CF3l

 

L(cm)      wt(g)

4.4±0.107

1.1±0.001

16.00±1.15

28.33±1.67

18.67±1.33

35.00±5.00

15.80±1.13

39.20±8.09

I=1.29

F=0.99

 

CF3ll

 

L(cm)     wt(g)

4.1±0.125

1.1±0.003

15.00±1.73

28.33±7.26

18.33±2.33

30.00±7.64

39.5±7.90

16.9±1.10

I=1.59

F=1.00

 

 

CF3lll

 

L(cm)     wt(g)

3.9±0.112

1.0±0.001

16.33±1.76

30.00±7.64

15.66±0.997

33.33±6.67

16.9±1.10

46.70±8.44

I=1.68

F=0.96

 

FF3l

 

L(cm)     wt(g)

8.29±0.19

4.1±0.801

17.00±0.58

36.67±3.33

16.83±1.36

33.33±6.67

16.17±1.13

37.50±6.26

I=0.719

F=0.886

 

FF3ll

 

L(cm)    wt(g)

3.8±0.120

1.2±0.003

15.00±5.52

21.67±9.28

16.00±2.08

36.67±8.82

-

I=2.18

F=0.89

8 Wks

 

FF3lll

 

L(cm)     wt(g)

3.8±0.118

1.1±0.004

16.67±1.76

26.67±6.67

17.33±2.73

33.3±12.0

-

I=2.00

F=0.63

 

Table 4: Mean length and weight of fish stocked at 3 fingerlings/m2 and feed commercial feeds (ponds CF3l, CF3ll, CF3lll) and formulated feed (FF3l, FF3ll, FF3lll) 

 

Period (days)

 

 

1

 

28

 

56

 

70

Condition factor

I – Initial

F – Final

Ponds/L& wt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CF5l

 

L(cm) wt(g)

4.0±0.091

1.5±0.015

15.2±0.86

25.00±3.16

16.80±1.16

33.00±8.00

-

I=2.3

F=0.63

 

CF5ll

 

L(cm) wt(g)

3.7±0.101

1.3±0.132

31.00±4.0

17.60±1.12

36.0±6.78

15.00±1.95

-

I=2.5

F=0.59

 

 

CF5lll

 

L(cm) wt(g)

3.8±0.170

1.5±0.021

17.60±1.12

30.00±4.47

15.00±1.95

26.00±6.78

-

I=2.7

F=0.77

 

FF5l

 

L(cm) wt(g)

4.5±0.008

1.16±0.11

15.00±1.00

28.00±5.15

16.60±1.63

34.00±8.72

26.0±1.21

96.0±26.6

I=1.27

F=0.05

 

FF5ll

 

L(cm) wt(g)

4.1±0.018

1.0±0.003

16.80±0.97

33.00±5.39

16.80±1.32

35.00±8.37

 

 

-

I=1.45

F=0.73

 

FF5lll

 

 

L(cm) wt(g)

 

4.1±0.021

 

1.5±0.004

16.2±0.66

 

30.00±4.47

17.80±1.20

 

37.00±7.00

 

 

-

I=2.17

 

F=0.65

 

Table 5: Mean length and weight of fish stocked at 3 fingerlings/m2 and fed commercial feeds (ponds CF5l, CF5ll, CF5lll) and formulated feed (FF5l, FF5ll, FF5lll)

 

Period (days)

 

 

1

 

28

 

56

 

70

Condition factor

I – Initial

F – Final

Ponds/ L& wt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CF10l

 

L(cm) wt(g)

8.68±0.167

4.5±0.801

16.1±0.90

31.50±5.78

16.1±0.86

35.00±4.59

-

I=0.64

F=0.83

 

CF10ll

 

L(cm) wt(g)

8.7±0.182

4.5±0.761

16.30±1.00

30.50±5.08

14.50±0.70

27.50±3.52

-

I=0.68

F=0.90

 

 

CF10lll

 

L(cm) wt(g)

9.8±0.201

4.7±0.810

14.50±1.23

30.00±6.62

15.90±0.92

33.50±5.06

-

I=0.49

F=0.83

 

FF10l

 

L(cm) wt(g)

4.0±0.121

1.2±0.01

17.00±1.82

36.50±4.54

16.90±0.90

42.00±5.17

-

I=1.875

F=0.87

 

FF10ll

 

L(cm) wt(g)

4.6±0.09

1.3±0.057

17.30±0.70

35.50±3.83

15.00±1.37

33.00±7.73

-

I=1.33

F=0.97

 

 

FF10lll

 

L(cm) wt(g)

4.4±0.081

1.4±0.063

16.30±1.02

32.00±4.73

15.20±0.80

31.00±5.10

-

I=1.64

F=0.88

 

Table 6: Mean length and weight of fish stocked at 3 fingerlings/m2 and fed commercial feeds (ponds CF10l, CF10ll, CF10lll) and formulated feed (FF10l, FF10ll, FF10lll)

 

Ponds

 

Daily Weight gain (g/day)

 

Specific growth rate (%)

 

Mean ? SE of DW

 

Mean ? SE of SGR.

 

 

CF3I

 

0.682

 

6.17

 

0.591

 

6.31

 

CF3II

 

0.516

 

5.90

 

 

 

CF3III

 

0.577

 

6.86

 

±0.004

 

±0.173

 

FF3I

 

0.521

 

3.74

 

0.576

 

5.30

 

FF3II

 

0.633

 

6.10

 

 

 

FF3III

 

0.575

 

6.08

 

±0.001

 

±0.002

 

FC5I

 

0.562

 

5.51

 

0.539

 

5.51

 

CF5II

 

0.619

 

5.93

 

 

 

CF5III

 

0.437

 

5.09

 

±0.011

 

±0.010

 

FF5I

 

0.586

 

6.03

 

0.608

 

6.03

 

FF5II

 

0.607

6.34

 

 

 

FF5III

 

0.633

 

5.72

 

±0.005

 

±0.003

 

CF10I

 

0.550

 

3.78

 

0.491

 

3.50

 

CF10II

 

0.410

 

3.23

 

 

 

CF10III

 

0.514

 

3.50

 

±0.004

 

±0.001

 

FF10I

 

0.728

 

6.34

 

0.607

 

5.88

 

FF10II

 

0.566

 

5.77

 

 

 

FF10III

 

0.528

 

5.53

 

±0.012

 

±0.021

Table 7: Daily weight gain and specific growth rate of fish cultured in earthen ponds and fed with commercial feed (CF3l, CF3ll, CF3lll; CF5l, CF5ll, CF5lll; CF10l, CF10ll, CF10lll) and formulated feed (FF3l, FF3ll, FF3lll; FF5l, FF5ll, FF5lll; FF10l, FF10ll, FF10lll) 

 

 

Commercial feed

 

Formulated feed

 

 

 

3

 

Fingerlings /m2

 

5

 

Fingerlings /m2

 

10

 

Fingerlings /m2

 

3

 

Fingerlings /m2

            5

Fingerlings /m2

 

10

 

Fingerlings /m2

 

Total number stocked

 

81

 

135

 

270

 

81

 

135

 

270

 

 

 

Total mortalities

 

53

 

91

 

218

 

68

 

127

 

269

 

 

Total number harvested

 

28

 

44

 

52

 

13

 

8

 

1

Table 8: Total number of fish stocked, total mortalities and survival rate in the earthen ponds on the 70th day of culture 

 

Period (days)

% body weight

Mean wt of fish

(g)/SD

Qty of feed/day

(kg)

Mean wt of fish

(g)/SD

Qty of feed/day

(kg)

Mean wt of fish

(g)/SD

Qty of feed/day (kg)

 

C3I

C3II

C3III

1 (5%)

1.1

 

1.1

 

1.1

 

 

 

27

 

0.0014

 

27

 

0.0014

 

27

 

0.0014

28 (5%)

28.3

 

28.3

 

30.0

 

 

 

27

 

0.0382

 

27

 

0.0382

 

27

 

0.0400

56 (3%)

35.0

 

30.0

 

31.6

 

 

 

27

 

0.0283

 

27

 

0.0243

 

27

 

0.255

70 (3%)

39.2

 

39.5

 

46.7

 

 

 

10

 

0.0117

 

8

 

0.0094

 

10

 

0.0140

Total qty of feed used per pond (kg)

 

 

1.48

 

 

1.43

 

 

1.50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F3I

F3II

F3III

1 (5%)

4.10

 

1.2

 

1.10

 

 

 

27

0.0055

 

27

0.0016

 

27

0.0014

28 (5%)

36.67

 

21.67

 

26.67

 

 

 

27

 

0.0495

 

27

 

0.0292

 

27

 

0.0360

56 (3%)

33.33

 

36.67

 

33.30

 

 

 

27

 

0.0269

 

27

 

0.0297

 

27

 

0.0269

70 (3%)

37.50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

0.0011

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

Total qty of feed used per pond (kg)

 

 

1.89

 

 

1.24

 

 

1.74

Table 9: Quantity of feed given per day for fish cultured in earthen ponds at 3 fish/m2 and fed with commercial and formulated feeds

 

  1. Total quantity of feed used to culture fish at 3 fish/m2 and fed with commercial feed = 4.41kg
  2. Total quantity of feed used to culture fish at 3 fish/m2 and fed with formulated feed = 4.80 k 

 

 

Period (days)

% body weight

Mean wt of fish

(g)/SD

Qty of feed/day

(kg)

Mean wt of fish

(g)/SD

Qty of feed/day

(kg)

Mean wt of fish

(g)/SD

Qty of feed/day (kg)

 

CF5I

CF5II

CF5III

1 (5%)

1.5

 

1.3

 

1.5

 

 

45

0.0033

45

0.0029

45

0.0033

28 (5%)

25.0

 

31.0

 

30.0

 

 

45

0.0562

45

0.0697

45

0.0675

56 (3%)

33.0

 

36.0

 

26.0

 

 

45

0.0445

45

0.486

45

0.0351

70 (3%)

-

-

-

-

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total qty of feed used per pond (kg)

 

 

2.20

 

 

2.66

 

 

2.43

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FF5I

FF5II

FF5III

1 (5%)

1.16

 

1.0

 

1.5

 

 

45

0.0026

45

0.0022

45

0.0033

28 (5%)

28.0

 

33.0

 

30.0

 

 

45

0.063

45

0.0742

45

0.0675

56 (3%)

33.0

 

35.0

 

37.0

 

 

45

0.0459

45

0.047

45

0.0499

70 (3%)

96.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

8

0.0230

-

-

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

2.45

 

 

2.75

 

 

2.03

Table 10: Quantity of feed given per day for fish cultured in earthen ponds at 5 fish/m2 and fed with commercial and formulated feeds

  1. Total quantity of feed used per pond (kg)
  2. Total quantity of feed used to culture fish at 5 fish/m2 and fed with commercial feed = 7.29kg
  3. Total quantity of feed used to culture fish at 5 fish/m2 and fed with formulated feed = 7.23kg

 

Period  (days)

% body weight

Mean wt of fish

(g)/SD

Qty of feed/day

(kg)

Mean wt of fish

(g)/SD

Qty of feed/day

(kg)

Mean wt of fish

(g)/SD

Qty of feed/day (kg)

 

CF10I

CF10II

CF10III

1 (5%)

4.2

 

4.5

 

4.7

 

 

90

0.0189

90

0.0202

90

0.0211

28 (5%)

31.50

 

30.50

 

30.0

 

 

90

0.1417

90

0.1372

90

0.135

56 (3%)

35.0

 

27.50

 

33.50

 

 

90

0.1575

90

0.0742

90

0.0900

70 (3%)

-

-

-

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total qty of feed used per pond (kg)

 

 

6.682

 

 

5.425

 

 

5.615

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FF10I

FF10II

FF10III

1 (5%)

1.2

 

1.3

 

1.4

 

 

90

0.0054

90

0.0058

90

0.0063

28 (5%)

36.5

 

35.50

 

32.0

 

 

90

0.1642

90

0.1597

90

0.1575

56 (3%)

42.0

 

33.0

 

31.0

 

 

90

0.1134

90

0.0891

90

0.0837

70 (3%)

-

-

-

-

-

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total qty of feed used per pond (kg)

 

 

5.751

 

 

5.875

 

 

6.331

Table 11: Quantity of feed given per day for fish cultured in earthen ponds at 10 fish/m2 and fed with commercial and formulated feeds

  1. Total quantity of feed used to culture fish at 10 fish/m2 and fed with commercial feed = 17.72kg
  2. Total quantity of feed used to culture fish at 10 fish/m2 and fed with formulated feed = 17.95 kg

 

Weight

(g)

 

Commercial

 

Formulated

3

Fish/m2

5

Fish/m2

10

Fish/m2

3

Fish/m2

5

Fish/m2

10

Fish/m2

 

Initial weight

 

1.06

 

1.43

 

4.46

 

2.13

 

1.22

 

1.30

 

Final weight

 

32.77

 

31.66

 

32.00

 

34.43

 

35.33

 

35.33

 

Weight gain

 

31.41

 

30.23

 

27.54

 

32.30

 

34.11

 

34.03

 

Total weight

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gain x SD at

 

879.48

 

1,330.12

 

1,432.08

 

419.90

 

272.88

 

34.03

 

70 days

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 12: Total weight gain for fish cultured in earthen ponds and fed with commercial and formulated feed 

 

 

 

 

Commercial

 

Formulated

3

Fish/m2

5

Fish/m2

10

Fish/m2

3

Fish/m2

5

Fish/m2

10

Fish/m2

 

Total weight

of food

consumed (g)

 

 

 

4410

 

      

       7290

 

 

17,720

 

 

4800

 

 

 

7230

 

 

17,950

 

Total weight

of food

produced (g)

 

 

 

879.48

 

 

1,330.12

 

 

1,432.08

 

 

419.90

 

 

272.88

 

 

34.03

 

FCR at day 70

 

5.0

 

5.4

 

12.3

 

11.4

 

26.4

 

527.4

Table 13: FCR for fish cultured in earthen ponds as at the 70th day of cultured 

 

 

Weight (g)

 

Commercial

 

Formulated

3

Fish/m2

5

Fish/m2

10

Fish/m2

Statistic

3

Fish/m2

5

Fish/m2

10

Fish/m2

Statistic

 

Initial weight(g)

Initial C.F

 

 

1.06

1.52

 

1.43

2.5

 

4.46

0.68

 

 

2.131.63

 

1.22

1.63

 

1.30

1.61

 

 

Final weight(g)

Initial C.F

 

 

32.77

0.98

 

31.66

0.68

 

32.00

0.85

 

NS P>0.05

P>0.01

 

 

34.43

0.80

 

35.33

0.47

 

35.33

0.90

 

NSP>0.05

P>0.01

 

Daily Weight

Gain DW

(g/day)

 

 

 

0.591

 

 

0.539

 

 

0.691

 

 

 

0.576

 

 

0.609

 

 

0.607

 

 

Specific growth

Rate (SGR) (%)

 

 

Survival rate

 

 

 

6.31

 

 

34.5

 

 

 

5.51

 

 

32.5

 

 

3.50

 

 

19.2

 

Sig at

1%p<0.01

 

Sig at

1%P<0.01

 

 

5.30

 

 

16.0

 

 

6.03

 

 

5.9

 

 

5.88

 

 

0.3

 

NS

P>0.05

 

 

Sig at

P<0.05

 

Benefit cost rate (BCR)

 

0.274

 

0.250

 

0.111

 

 

0.193

 

0.083

 

0.004

 

Table 14: Summary of result of maximizing production of C. gariepinus in earthen ponds

Discussion

The water quality parameters were within the levels recommended by [9] and [10] for the culture of C. gariepinus as defined for warm water fish species. The calculated values of crude protein of the formulated feed (55%, 45% and 42%) were slightly higher than values determined by proximate analysis (44.50 ± 0.61, 42.6 ± 0.76 & 41.98 ± 0.03) respectively. The values were however within recommended ranges for the culture of C. gariepinus [11]. Similar results of crude protein content for C. gariepinus were observed by [12].

The effect of the three stocking densities 3, 5 and 10 fingerlings/m2 on the mean final weight, SGR and DW were compared. The mean, final weight, SGR and DW were highest in ponds stocked at 3 fingerlings/m2. There was however no significant difference in the final weight of fish in the three stocking densities at 5% and 1% level of significance. It means there was optimum production at the three stocking densities. Survival rate was highest in ponds stocked at 3 fingerlings/m2 and fed with commercial feed. The lowest survival rate was recorded in ponds stocked at 10 fingerlings/m2 and fed with formulated feed. The cause of the high mortality was however suspected to be a fish-eating reptile, Iguana, which were reported to have entered ponds FF3II, FF3III, and FF5I, FF5III, FF10I, FF10II and FF10II. The significant difference in the survival rate of fish stocked at 5 fingerlings/m2 and 10 fingerlings/m2 attributed to the activities of the fish-eating reptile. [13] Summarized mortality causes during the culture of C. gariepinus to include: Predation by various organisms, shortage of adequate feeds and poor water quality. According to [14] predators can either enter the pond through the inlet pipes (eggs and larva as well as some adult frogs and toads) or through the air (insects and birds). [15] Working on predator defense and feeding adapted stocking of C. gariepinus showed that adult amphibians, aquatic insects and flying predators were responsible for 28%, 6% and 23% respectively of mortalities. The present experiment implicated the presence of Iguana, a reptile that feeds on fish in the ponds. On the other hand, the highest mortalities (80.2% & 99.7%) recorded in ponds stocked at 10 fingerlings/m2 and fed with commercial and formulated feed, respectively, could be as a result of increased stocking densities. It may also be an indication of shortage of adequate food (Hogendorn et al, 1983, possibly exacerbated by increased competition and cannibalism [16], a common problem that led to mortality rate in the region of 98% particularly at stocking densities of about 100 fingerlings/m2 [17, 18]. The need therefore to maximally protect earthen ponds from aquatic reptiles and other organisms that could constitute a threat to the survival of pond raised fish cannot be over emphasized as maximization of production may not be achieved in earthen ponds without adequate screening of the ponds against mortality – causing organisms.

Conclusion

Three stocking densities 3 fingerlings/m2, 5 fingerlings/m2 and 10 fingerlings/m2 were fed with both commercial and formulated feeds in 18 experimental ponds of 9m2 each experimental ponds and each stocking density was replicated 3 times. Results after 70 days (10 weeks) showed that there was no significant difference in the final weight of fish for all the categories (P>0.05; P>0.01).

The highest daily weight gain (DW) and specific growth rate (SGR) of 0.591 and 6.31 respectively however was recorded in ponds stocked at 3 fish/m2. The highest survival rate of 34.5% was also recorded in ponds stocked at 3 fingerlings/m2 and closely followed by ponds stocked at 5 fingerlings/m2 with 32.5%. Ponds stocked at 5 fingerlings/m2 and fed with formulated feed also recorded the highest weight gain of 0.608 and specific growth rate of 6.03 amongst ponds fed with formulated feed. Therefore 5 fingerlings/m2 is recommended with locally formulated feed as there was no significant difference between the final weight and SGR of fish stocked at 5 fingerlings/m2 and the existing practice of 3 fingerlings/m2 with commercial feed.

References

  1. Okunneye PA (1986) Enhancing Fisheries Development in Nigeria. The case of River Basin Development Authority. Journal of West Africa Fisheries, 1: 57-67.
  2. Ayinla OA, Nwadukwe FO (2003) Review of the Development of hybrid (Heteroclarias) of Clarias gariepinus and Heterobranchus bidorsalis. Nigeria Journal of Fish, 1: 85-95.
  3. Adeogun OA, Ogunbadejo HK, Ayinla OA, Oresegun A, Oguntade OR, et al. (2007) Urban Aquaculture Producers: Perception and practices in Lagos State Nigeria. Journal of Scientific Research, 2: 21-27.
  4. Williams BB, Olaosebikan BD, Adeleke A, Fagbenro OA (2007) Status of African catfish farming in Nigeria. Proceedings of Workshop on the Development of Genetic Improvement Program for African catfish, 5-9.
  5. Okoye PC (1976) Fertilizers application in Ponds. National Institute for Fresh Water Fisheries Research (NIFFR) Extension Guide Series, 3: 10-15.
  6. Falayi BA (2003) Techniques in the Fish Feed Manufacture In: Proceedings of the National Workshop on Fish feed development and feeding practice in Aquaculture: New Bussa: Fisheries Society of Nigeria.
  7. Viola S, Rappaport O, Zochar G (1988) Animal Protein Free Feeds for Hybrids Tilapia ( Niloticus x O. aureus) in intensive culture. Aquaculture, 75: 115-125.
  8. Stiffene W (1997) Principles of fish Nutrition. London Ellin Horwood.
  9. Boyd CE (1981) Water Quality in Harm Water Fishponds, Auburn: University Experimental Station Publication.
  10. APHA (American Public Health Association) (1999) Standard Methods for the Examination of waste and wastewater, 16th edition, New York: American Public Health Association.
  11. Anderson J (1984) Effect of dietary protein level on growth survival, feed utilization and body composition of hybrid Clarias Catfish (Clarias batrachus & Clarias gariepinus) In: Animal feed Science and Technology, 104: 169-178.
  12. Balogun AMF, Ugwu LLC (1986) Nutrition utilization and growth responses of Clarias lazera fed with different dietary protein level of Heterobranchus bidorsalis fingerlings feed compounded diets.
  13. Hogendoorn H (1979) Controlled Propagation of the African Catfish, Clarias (C&V) 1: Reproductive biology and field experiments. Aquaculture, 17: 323-333.
  14. Viveen WJAR; Richter CJJ, Oordt PGV, Janseen,m JAL, Huisman EA (1985) Practical Manual for the culture of the African Catfish (Clarias gariepinus) Hague:Research and Technology Production Israeli Journal of Aquaculture, 44: 8.
  15. Young-Sulem, S, Brummeth RE, Tabi TE, Tchouboue T (2007) Towards the maximum profitability of small holder catfish nurseries predator defense and feeding adapted stocking of Clarias gariepinus. Aquaculture, 271: 371-376.
  16. Hecth Y, Uys W, Britz PJ (1988) The Culture of sharp tooth catfish Clarias gariepinus in southern Africa. South Africa National Scientific Programmes. Report No. 133 Johannesburg: National Scientific Programme.
  17. Graff GDD, Janssen JAL (1996) A handbook on the Artificial Reproduction and pond rearing of the African catfish in sub-Saharan Africa, Clarias gariepinus. Food and Agriculture Organization. Fisheries Technical Papers 362: Rome, Food and Agricultural Organization.
  18. Graaf GJD, Galemoni JF, Banzoussi B (1995) Artificaial reproduction and fingerlings production of the African Catfish, Clarias ganepinus Burshell 1982) in protected and unprotected ponds. Aquaculture Research, 26: 233-243.

Citation: Ajah PO, Edeghe AI, Enin UI (2022) Growth of clarias gariepinus Reared in Earthen Ponds in Calabar, South Nigeria under Duo Nutritional Diet. J Aquac Fisheries 6: 047.

Copyright: © 2022  Ajah PO, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

© 2022, Copyrights Herald Scholarly Open Access. All Rights Reserved!