Beta Fulltext view is in preview — article structure may vary. Browse all articles
Contents
Open Access Journal of Agricultural Research Research Article 21 min read

Assessment of Growth Performance and Survival of Clarias gariepinus Larvae Fed with Live Feed (Acartia tonsa) and Commercial Feed (Artemia)

Abu OMG* and Nwanoniwu BC*
* Corresponding author
ISSN: 2474-8846  10.23880/oajar-16000326  Received: September 29, 2023  Published: October 25, 2023
 — views
 30 references
 7 tables
PDF
Keywords
Catfish Live Feed Acartia Artemia Aquaculture
Abstract

Investigation was done in the growth performance and survival of catfish larvae using five treatments at the hatchery unit of the Department of Fisheries, University of Port Harcourt. The treatments were T1 (50% Acartia and 50% Artemia) T2 (25 Acartia and 75 Artemia) T3 (75 Acartia and 25 Artemia), T4 (100% Acartia) and control (100% Artemia). They were applied in triplicate. 200 larvae were transferred to 15 experimental tanks after their exogenous feeding, and the application of treatments (feed) started 12 hours after stocking. Feeding was done three times a day at 7am, 1pm and 7pm. At the end of the experiment which lasted for 15 days, control (0.135g±0.173) and T2 had the highest weight gain (0.033g±0.0022) while T4 (0.022g±0.002) had the least. The highest in length gain was in T2 (1.0838cm±0.0578) while T4 (0.906acm±0.130) had the least. For survival rate control (75.50% ±2.2039) and T2 (75.40%a±1.250) were the highest while T4 (39.625%a±3.148) was the least the values for the specific growth rate shows that T2 had the best performance while control had the least. From the research findings Treatment two (25% Acartia and 75% Artemia) and treatment three (75 Artemia and 25 Acartia) gave the same level of performance with the control in terms of length gain, survival and growth.

Introduction

Aquaculture in Nigerian has grown tremendously over the past decades [1, 2]. Larviculture has been the most delicate part of aquaculture considering their survival and growth [3]. Most fish farmers deviated from culturing to buying of fingerlings because of the techniques involve in production of larva. Recently, increasing costs of aquaculture feed constitute one of the high operating expenditure in intensive practice. Also, culturing of larva which is one of the major sources of protein in fish culture has also drastically declined due to techniques involved [4]. In Nigeria, the highest accepted cultured fish is Clarias gariepinus, because of its hardy nature, high survival rate and fast growth rate [5]. Clarias gariepinus also belong to group of fish where larvae absorb their yolk from day one of hatching to 3rd day of hatching. The digestive system is rudimentary, lacking a stomach and much of the protein digestion takes place in hindgut epithelial cell [6]. Such a digestive system seems at this point in capable of processing formulated diet in a manner that allows survival and growth.

Furthermore, in hatchery, an adequate supply of live food for first feeding fish larva is essential and nutritional quality of live food organism should be high [7]. Some researchers have investigated the effect of live food, Jeje CY, et al. [8], reported that the larvae of African catfish are small at hatching less or equal to 4mg and 7mm in weight and length respectively. The smaller sizes of this larva possibly thrive better on small Zooplankton especially Acartia tonsa which the female is 1.2 to 1.5mm body length, the male to 1.0 to 1.1mm body length compared to decysted Artemia cysts whose size range from 200 to 300 micron. The size of Acartia tonsa coupled with their relative mobility make it easier for them to be found and captured as food with lower energetic cost. Similar study conducted by Abaho I, et al. [9], showed that live food fed larvae were richer in essential fatty acids while those fed on combination of rotifer and Artemia, had improved growth rate. Similarly, work of other researcher indicate that live food confer better nutritional benefit to fish larvae since they are able to transfer fatty acids and other nutrient through the algae - rotifer -larvae food. Nutritionally, from the findings of Abaho I, et al. [9], the growth performance of live food fed Africa catfish larvae also corresponds with the high levels of Docosahexanaemic acid (DHA) in the live food diet. The larval fatty acid profile are always reflections of the diet profile Docosahexanaemic acid (DHA), an essential fatty acid that accumulate in the brain of fish during early development and functions to increase neural functions which can be easily incorporated in live food than Artemia due to catabolism of these fatty acid [10].

Nevertheless, the production of nutritionally adequate live starter feeds is a benchmark for successful fish seed production of African catfish [11]. However, the appropriate culture and adequate quantities of live feed for propagation of African catfish remain a challenge resulting in high larvae mortality at early life stages, hence low numbers of fish larvae obtained in hatcheries [11]. In Nigeria, the present practices among fish farmers (hatchery operator) is the use of decapsulated cyst of different Artemia strains following commencement of exogenous feeding and this has resulted in low survival rate in hatchery-based catfish seed production as low as 15% which is attributed mainly to poor larval nutrition [12]. It is documented that the nutritional quality of Artemia may vary considerably according to the geographical strain, processing batch and development stage as observed, the farmers are therefore not able to identify the best already packaged strain to use and yet not all strains of Artemia guarantee equal culture success in aquaculture hatcheries [13]. These factors together with the high cost and occasional scarcity of Artemia also make it unreachable for many commercial fish farmers [14]. There is a need therefore to explore alternative starter feeds (especially live feeds) to this Artemia to meet these challenges. Copepod especially Acartia tonsa, copepod have been viewed as potential alternative ration for Artemia as a live starter feed in African catfish larvae rearing because of their good morphological, behavioral and nutritional characteristics A partially bigger mouth in African catfish larvae than most cyprinid larvae permits newly hatched larval Clarias gariepinus to consume Acartia with sizes greater than 200 µm [15]. This study therefore compared the growth performance of African catfish larvae fed on different inclusion level of Acartia and Artemia.

Materials and Method

Description of Study Area

The experiment was carried out at University of Port Harcourt, Demonstration Fish Farm, Choba campus Rivers State, Nigeria,

Harvesting of Zooplankton

Zooplankton (Acartia) was harvested using a standard zooplankton net placed against the water current for 2-3 minutes and the filtrate at the zooplankton bottle is returned in a screen bowl. Zooplankton was harvested in Buguma every three days. The entire experiment lasted for 15days. Two major steps were involved in the experiment they include Harvesting of Zooplankton (Acartia) from Buguma and spawning of fish alongside with feeding trials.

Spawning of Fish

Spawning refer to the natural or artificial procedure the fish go through in other release their eggs. The brood stock used for the spawning was procured from Demonstration Farm, Choba, University of Port Harcourt. The sexes were kept separate to avoid indiscriminate spawning.

Brood Stock Selection

A male brookstock was selected based on the following criteria

  • Aggressiveness to other males
  • Extruding papilla that touches the base of the pectoral tin.
  • Reddish pappilla
  • Brood fish of 1.5 to 2kg and 13 to 16 months of age.

The female brood stocks were selected based on the following;

  • Swollen soft abdomen
  • Reddish or pinkish urinogenital organ
  • Release of eggs on slight pressure to the abdomen

Administration of Hormone

The female fish were injected intramuscularly below the lateral line just below the dorsal fin at the rate of 0.5ml of hormone (Ovatide) to 1kg of body weight of fish. The male fish were not injected. All the broodstock were returned to solitary confinement for a latency period of nine hours.

Collection of Milt

The male fish were sacrificed by dissection to get the testis. The testis was dissected and the milt poured unto the stripped eggs.

Collection of Eggs

The female fish was injected intramuscularly with overtide at the rate of 0.5ml per kg body weight and left for 9hours of latency period in a covered container. They were stripped after nine hours (latency period) and at a time when the eggs were freely oozing out on a slight touch. The eggs were stripped into a clean bowl and care was taken while stripping to guide the eggs and the milt from coming in contact with water.

Fertilization

Milt solution was prepared by dissecting the gonad extracting the milt and mixing the extract with saline solution (0.09 percent). The milt solution was mixed with the eggs and mechanically shaken for 1 minute. A little water was added to the mixture. The eggs were then spread out on a hatching mat in the incubation tank.

Hatching

hatching is simply the mechanical enzymatic process of breaking the egg shells and release of the leaver. The hatching of eggs occurred in about 26 hours after fertilization and incubation. The hatchlings had egg sack attached to their abdomen. They were left for a period of three days to absorb their yoke and feeding trial started on the fourth day when they begin to swim as fry.

Experimental Design and Larvae Rearing

Complete Randomized Design was used in this research with four treatments and control. Three replicate for each treatment and control. Fifteen Dedi J, et al. (15) tanks were labeled used for the experiment, $T_1 R_1, T_1 R_2, T_1 R_3$, represents treatment one in three replicate. $T_2 R_2, T_2 R_2, T_3 R_3$, represents treatment two in three replicate. $T_4 R_1, T_4 R_2, T_4 R_3$, represents treatment four in three replicate while $C_1 R_1, C_1 R_2, C_1 R_3$, represent control.

Feeding was done three times daily, morning (7-8am) noon (1-2) and evening (6-7pm) with feeding adjusted in accordance with their body weight. Acartia was harvested two to three times a week maintaining the salinity and keeping them in brackish water until it exhausted. The standard plankton net was used, washed and screened through mosquito netting to eliminate larvae, debris and predators before using it to feed the fish. The uneaten feed in each experimental setup was siphoned off daily while the water was also removed by reducing and adding the same amount of water in each bowl in order to avoid accumulation of Ammonia which is harmful to fish.

Data Collection

The initial mean weight and total length of the Fry were taken using a sensitive analytical balance and a meter rule before commencement of feeding. Weight gain, specific growth rate, survival and mortality percentage were calculated on a fish fed three times a day and physico–chemical parameters were taken every other day.

Weight Determination

Sample to be weighed were randomly removed from each experimental tank and kept alive in a small plastic bowl and weight collected on weighing days. The fish were not fed until the whole exercise was completed. After the measurements, the fish were put in fresh water and then returned to the rearing tanks while subsequently weighing was done individual and the mean weight gain was determined according to Sogbesan AO, et al. [16].

$$\text{Daily Weight Gain (DWG)} = \frac{WF - W_1}{d}$$

Where $W_1$ is the final weight, $W_1$ is the initial weight, $d$ is the nursing period in days.

$$\text{Specific Growth Rate\%} = \frac{\log \text{final weight} - \log \text{initial weight} \times 100}{\text{Time}}$$

Survival Percentage

At the end of the trial (15 days), all the surviving fish were harvested, counted, divided by the total number stocked and multiplied by 100.

100 Noof fishinceased PercentageSurvival Noof fish stocked × =

Determination of Physio-Chemical Parameter

Physio-chemical data collected during the study include temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO) and hydrogen concentration (pH) Ammonia (NH3) using Hach Farm testing kit and hand held multi meter (pH, temperature).

Statistical Analysis

The measured values where analysed using two way ANOVA (Analysis of variance) at p>0.05 to test for significant difference in the growth performance and survival of Clarias gariepinus larvae fed commercial feed and live food (Acartia tonsa ) using Duncan multiple range test was used to separate the means.

Results

Physico-chemical parameters recorded in Table 1 below indicate that the highest Dissolved Oxygen level (6.04a±1.562) during the research was recorded in control, followed by treatment three (T3) (5.00a±1.106), treatment one (T1)(4.80a±1.010), treatment two (T2) (4.66a±1.020) and treatment four (T4) (4.34a±0.613) in descending order. Recorded pH level during the research as shown in table 1 below was highest in treatment two (T2) (7.9a±1.464), followed by treatment four (T4) (7.57a±0.446), treatment one (T1) (7.51a±0.646), and the lowest observed in control (7.20a±0.351). No significant different at (P<0.05) was observed between treatment. hough recorded temperature during the research as show the table1 below was highest in treatment two (T2) (25.33a±1.556) and treatment four (T4) (25.33a±1.756), followed by treatment one (T1)(25.27a±1.68), and lowest is control (24.90a ±1.64). There was no significant difference at (P>0.05) across treatments. Ammonia (NH3) level recorded during the research as shown in table 1 below was highest in treatment two (T2) (1.03a±0.767), followed by treatment four (T4) (0.99a±0.713), treatment one (0.96a±0.690) the lowest is control (0.94a±0.690) No significant difference (p>0.05) across the treatment.

Table 2 showed the mean production parameters of Treatment T1 replicates (50% Acartia and 50% Artemia), it was observed that replicate 1 has the highest weight gain (0.0296ag±0.006), replicate 2 (0.0252ag±0.0012) and the lowest was recorded in replicate 3(0.0245ag±0.0045). it also show the average mean length gain 3 replicate shows the highest length gain (1.070acm±0.070) follow by the replicate

2 (1.05acm±0.030cm) the lowest is 1(0.014acm±0.012m) for the specific growth rate, the highest is replicate 3(4.9793a%±0.590) followed by replicate 1(4.619a%±0.0190) and the lowest is replicate 2 (4.590a±0.590) the highest survival is observed in replicate 3(47.500a%±0.590) , followed by replicate 2 (46.500a%±0.500), the lowest is 1(45.5a%±0.500). Table 3 showed the mean production parameter of three replicate of treatment two (T2) 25% of Acartia and 75% Artemia in weight gain (WG). Replicate 1 had the highest mean weight gain (0.0349ag±0.0013) followed by replicate 3(0.0345ag±0.001) and lowest in replicate 2(0.0305ag±0.030500). Length gain average was highest in replicate 1(1.119acm±0.0013) followed by replicate 2(1.093acm±0.09300) and the lowest in replicate 3(1.051acm±0.001). Specific growth rate was highest in replicate 2(7.380%a±0.080) followed by the replicate 1(4.590%a) and the lowest in replicate 3(4.565). While survival observed in the experiment was highest in replicate 1(76.50a%±1.414), followed by replicate 2(75.50a%±1.001) with the lowest in replicate 3(74.50a%±1.0).No significant different observe across the treatment.

Table 4 showed the mean production parameters of treatment 3(T3) (75% Acartia and 25% Artemia). Highest weight gain was recorded in replicate 1(0.0246ag±0.001) while replicate 2(0.0235ag±0.001) and 3(0.0235ag±0.001) have same mean weight. The length gain was highest in replicate 1(1.072a±0.102) followed by 2(1.0607acm±0.001) the lowest is replicate 3(1.042acm±0.002), while the highest specific growth rate (SGR) was recorded in replicate 3(4.808a%±0.010), followed by replicate 1(4.700a%±0.99) and the lowest in replicate 2(4.613a%±0.013). Survival observed, was highest in replicate 3(67.50a%±1.00) followed by replicate 1(68.50a%±1.414) and the lowest is replicate 2(65.50a%±1.00). No significant different observed across the treatment.

Table 5, showed the mean production parameters of treatment four (T4) (100% Acartia tonsa,) Highest weight gain was observed in replicate 1(0.0238ag±0.001) followed by replicate 2(0.0221ag±0.0021) the lowest in replicate 3(0.0215ag±0.002). The length gain was highest in replicate 1(1.113acm±1.414) followed by replicate 2(0.853acm±0.032) the lowest in replicate 3(0.8370acm±0.032) while specific growth rate was highest in replicate 3(5.316a%±1.146) followed by replicate 1(4.610a%±1.414) and the lowest in replicate 2 (4.596a%±1.005). Highest survival was recorded in replicate 2(40.50a%±1.00) followed by replicate 3(39.625a%±3.14), and the lowest in survival is replicate 1(38.63a ±7.78).

Table 6 showed the mean production of parameters of control replicates (100% Artemia). It was observed that replicate 1(0.0416ag±0.0023) and replicate 2(0.0405ag±0.001), while the lowest was in replicate 3(0.293ag ±0.214). Length gain was highest in replicate 1(1.075acm±0.106), followed by replicate 2(1.06acm±0.020) and the lowest in 3(1.041acm±0.030) while specific growth rate was highest in replicate 3(4.860a%±0.007), followed by replicate 1(4.595a%±0.085) and the lowest observed in replicate 2(4.587a%±0.060). The highest survival was observed in replicate 3(76.50a%±3.0) followed by replicate 1(75.50a%±1.414) and lowest observed in replicate 2(74a%±2.00).

Table 7 showed the mean production parameters of treatments and control at the end of the experiment. It was observed that the control (100% Artemia) had the highest weight gain (0.135ag±0.173), followed by treatment two (T2) (25 Acartia and 75 Artemia) T2 (0.0333ag±0’0022), treatment one (T1) (50% Acartia and 50% Artemia) (0.0264ag±0.0025), treatment three (T3) (75% Acartia and 25 Artemia) (0.0238ag±0.001) the lowest is treatment four (T4) (0.0223ag±0.002). The highest length gain was recorded in treatment two (T2) (25% Acartia 75% Artemia) (1.0838acm±0.0578), followed by treatment three (T3) (75% Artemia and 25% Acartia) (1.0565acm±0.0406), control (1.0565acm ±0.047) and the lowest in treatment four (T4) (100%)(0.939acm ±0.130). The highest specific growth rate was observed in treatment two (T2) (25% Acartia 75% Artemia) (5.627a%± 0.455) followed by treatment three (T3) (75% Artemia and 25% Acartia) (4.707a%±0.385), treatment one (T1) (50% Acartia and 50% Artemia) (4.729a%± 0.455) and the lowest in treatment four (T4) (4.691a%±0.150). Fry survival was highest in treatment two (T2) (25% Acartia and 75% Artemia) (75.40a%±1.250) and control (100% Artemia) (75.40%±1.250), followed by treatment three (T3) (75% Artemia and 25% Acartia) (67.00a %±1.606), treatment 1 (50% Acartia and 50% Artemia) (46.5a%±1.0607) and the lowest in treatment four (T4) (100% Acartia) (39.625a%±3.14).

TreatmentsDOPHTemperatureNH3
T14.80a±1.0107.51a±0.64625.27a±1.6880.96a±0.67
T24.66a±1.0207.9a±1.46425.33a±1.5561.10a±0.802
T35.00a±1.1067.37a±0.44624.94a±1.9171.03a±0.767
T44.34a±0.6137.57a±0.44625.33a±1.7560.94a±0.713
CONTROL6.04a±1.5627.20a±0.35124.90a±1.640.94a±0.690

Table 1: ** Physico-Chemical Parameters of Treatment after 15 Days of Rearing.

*Values with same superscript on the same column have no significant difference. Key: T1- 50% Acartia and 50% Artemia) T2-25% Acarta and 75% Artemia T3-75% Acarta and 25% Artemia T4-100% Acarta Control -100% Artemia Table 1: Physico-Chemical Parameters of Treatment after 15 Days of Rearing.

Treatment (T1)ReplicateWG (g)LG (cm)SGR(%)S (%)
(50% Acartia)/(50% Artemia)R10.02960^{a±0.0061.01400^{a±0.00124.61900^{a±0.01045.50^{a±0.500
R20.02520^{a±0.00221.0550^{a±0.0304.590^{a±0.59046.50^{a±0.50
R30.02446^{a±0.00451.0700^{a±0.0704.9793^{a±0.58347.50^{a±1.00

Table 2: ** Mean production parameter of the three replicates in treatment one (50% Acartia and Artemia).

*Values with same superscript on the same column have no significant difference. Key: WG (g)–Weight gain in gram LG (cm)–length in centimeters SGR (%)–Specific growth rate in percentage S (%)–Survival in percentage R-Replicate Table 2: Mean production parameter of the three replicates in treatment one (50% Acartia and Artemia).

Treatment (T3)ReplicateWG(g)LG (cm)SGR (%)S(%)
(75% Acartia)/(25% Artemia)R10.0246 a±0.0011.0720a±0.1024.700a±0.99068.50a±1.412
R20.0235 a±0.0011.0607a±0.0014.6130a±0.01365.50a±1.00
R30.0235a±0.0011.042a±0.0024.809a±0.01067.50a±1.00

Table 3: ** Mean production parameter of the three replicates in treatment two (25% Acartia and Artemia).

Values with same superscript on the same column have no significant difference. Key: WG (g)–Weight gain in gram LG (cm)–Length in centimeters SGR (%)–Specific growth rate in percentage S (%)–Survival in percentage R-Replicate Table 3:** Mean production parameter of the three replicates in treatment two (25% Acartia and Artemia).

Treatment (T4)ReplicateWG(g)LG (cm)SGR (%)S(%)
100% AcartiaR10.0238a±0.0011.1130a±1.4144.610a±1.41438.50a±7.7782
R20.022a±0.00210.837a±0.0324.5887a±1.00540.50a±1.00
R30.0215a±0.0020.837a±0.0325.3160a±1.146639.625a±3.1481

Table 4: ** Mean production of the three replicates in treatment three (75% Acartia and 25% Artemia).

*Values with same superscript on the same column have no significant difference Key: WG (g)–Weight gain in gram LG (cm –Length in centimeters SGR (% –Specific growth rate in percentage S (%)–Survival in percentage R-Replicate Table 4: Mean production of the three replicates in treatment three (75% Acartia and 25% Artemia).

Treatment (T4)ReplicateWG(g)LG (cm)SGR (%)S(%)
100% AcartiaR10.0238a±0.0011.1130a±1.4144.610a±1.41438.50a±7.7782
R20.022a±0.00210.837a±0.0324.5887a±1.00540.50a±1.00
R30.0215a±0.0020.837a±0.0325.3160a±1.146639.625a±3.1481

Table 5: ** Mean production parameters of the three replicates in treatment four (100% Acartia).

*Values with same superscript on the same column have no significant difference Key: WG (g)–Weight gain in gram LG (cm)–Length in centimeters SGR (%)–Specific growth rate in percentage S (%)–Survival in percentage R-Replicate Table 5: Mean production parameters of the three replicates in treatment four (100% Acartia).

Treatment (Control)ReplicateWG(g)LG (cm)SGR (%)S(%)
100% ArtemiaR10.0416a±0.00231.075a±0.10614.595a±0.00775.50a±1.414
R20.04050a±0.0011.060a±0.0204.587a±0.08574.50a±2.0
R30.293a±0.2141.0407a±0.0304.860 a±0.06076.50a±3.0

Table 6: ** Mean production parameter of the three replicates in control.

*Values with same superscript on the same column have no significant difference Key: WG (g)–Weight gain in gram LG (cm)–Length in centimeters SGR (%)–Specific growth rate in percentage S (%)–Survival in percentage. R-Replicate Table 6: Mean production parameter of the three replicates in control.

WG(g)LG(cm)SGR(%)S(%)
T10.026a±0.00251.046a±0.04604.729a±0.45546.500a±1.0607
T20.03310a±0.00221.0838a±0.05785.627a±1.47775.40a±1.250
T30.023775a±0.0011.056513a±0.04064.709a±0.38567.00a±1.6036
T40.02230a±0.0020.906a±0.1304.867a±1.04339.625a±3.1481
Control0.13538a±0.1731.0565a±0.0474.691a±0.15075.500a±2.2039

Table 7: ** Mean of means production parameter of treatments and control after 15 days of rearing period.

*Values with same superscript on the same column have no significant difference Key : T1-50% Acartia and 50% Artemia) T2-25% Acarta and 75% Artemia T3-75% Acarta and 25% Artemia T4-100% Acarta Control -100% Artemia Table 7: Mean of means production parameter of treatments and control after 15 days of rearing period.

Discussion

Physico - chemical parameters taken were all within normal standard range. In the present study, growth performance and survival of Clarias gariepinus was influenced by both shell free Artemia and Acartia tonsa. The larvae performed better in treatment one (T1) (50% Acartia and 50% Artemia) with weight gain (0.026ga±0.0025), length gain (1.046cma±0.0460) specific growth rate (4.729%a±0.455) and survival (46.500%a±1.0607), treatment two (T2) (25% Acartia and 75% Artemia) performed better with weight gain (0.03310ga±0.0022), length gain (1.0838cma±0.0578), specific growth rate (5.627%a±1.477) and survival (75.40%a±1.250). treatment three (T3) (75% Acartia and 25% Artemia) performance was weight gain (0.023775ga±0.001), length gain (1.056513cma±0.0406) specific growth rate (4.709%a±0.385) and survival (67.00%a±1.6036) however, treatment four (T4) (100% Acartia) had the lowest performance in weight gain (0.02230ga±0.002), length gain (0.906cma±0.130), specific growth rate (4.867%a±1.043) and survival (39.625%a±3.1481). There was no significant difference at (P>0.05) between decapsulated Artemia which has been used as a good quality diet and freshly hatched zooplankton for larvae of marine shrimps and fresh water prawns [17]. Good result with decapsulated Artemia were obtained in larviculture of fresh water food fish species such as Clarias gariepinus [18], this agrees with our findings as control 100% Artemia had the highest weight gain (0.13538ga±0.173), also performed better in length gain (1.0565cma±0.047) and specific growth rate (4.691%a±0.150). These can be attributed to the fact that the higher dietary protein level in Artemia can meet the requirement of body protein synthesis in early stage and support fast growth of larvae. Watanabe T [19], Watanabe T, et al. [20], Watanab T, et al. [21] our finding also agreed with work of Li P, et al. [22] which shows that for both guppy fry and adult, the performance in terms of growth, survival and stress resistance of fish. Decapsulated Artemia is better than or comparable with those fed zooplankton. In this report finding shell free Artemia also recorded the highest survival percentage (75.500%a±2.2039).

In this research, combination of Acartia tonsa and shell free Artemia also shows a good performance in treatment one (T1) (50% Acartia and 50% Artemia) length gain (1.046cma±0.0460) treatment two (T2) (25% Acartia 75% Artemia) (1.0838acm±0.0578), which is the highest length gain, treatment three (T3) (75% Acartia and 25% Artemia) length gain (1.056513cma±0.0406)which is in line with work of Galloway TF, et al. [23]. This implies that the fry obtained their nutrition from both Artemia and A. tonsa. Clarias gariepinus larvae unable to access live food most have probably opted for Artemia for their food, this explained that treatment four (T4) (100% Acartia) did not perform as well as treatment one (T1) (50% Acartia and 50% Artemia) treatment two (T2) (25% Acartia and 75% Artemia) and treatment three (T3) (75% Acartia and 25% Artemia) which may have greatly contributed to the better growth and survival that was obtained in treatment two (T2) (75.40%a±1.250) since they were not starved. This work agrees with many other studies that has been carried out in Clarias gariepinus,. Clarias Macrocephalus Finn RN, Et al. [24], Folkword A [25], Durbin AG, et al. [26], Claris Batrachus Girri SS, et al. [27], Platebagus falvidraco [28]. This result is also similar to the works of Akbary P, et al. [29] who said that the growth benefit observed in combination of live food and artificial feed which resulted in true growth which was demonstrated by increase in length of fish. Treatment four (T4) (100% Acartia) was also observed to have low survival rate. This may have raised as a result of larvae increases in size, the nutrient composition of live food did not only become insufficient but also inadequate resulting in weakness and subsequently death of the larvae. Again treatment four (T4) (100% Acartia) having the lowest length gain (0.906cma±0.130), weight gain (0.02230ga±0.002), this may be as a result of, a little motion required for fry to pick live food (Acartia), this difficulty in picking live food may have led to the poor growth of larvae. This results is in line with the findings of Nwachi OF, et al. [30].

Conclusion and Recommendation

From the research findings Treatment two (25% Acartia and 75% Artemia) and treatment three (75 Artemia and 25 Acartia) gave the same level of performance with the control in terms of length gain, survival and growth. Treatment two (25% Acartia and75% Artemia) and treatment three (75% Artemia and 25% Acartia) should be used in culture of C. gariepinus larvae in place of sole shell free Artemia.

References

  1. Akinrotimi OA, Abu OMG, Aranyo AO (2011) Environmental Friendly aquaculture: key to sustainable fish farming development in Nigeria. Continental Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Science 5(2): 17-131.
  2. Akinrotimi OA, Abu OMG, Aranyo AA (2011) Transforming aquaculture from subsistence to commercial level for sustainable development in Niger Delta Region of Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture and Social Research 11(2): 22-33.
  3. Abu OMG, Gabriel UU, Erondu ES, Akinrotimi OA (2009) Effects of dietary inclusions of whole cassava root meal on the haematology of hybrid catfish. International Journal of Tropical Agriculture and Food Systems 3(3): 245-251.
  4. Okunsebor SA, Ayuma V (2011) Growth, survival rate and condtion factor of Heteroclarias hatchling fed cultured moina micra, shell free Artemia and combinations of both as starter feed. Livestock For Rural Dev 23(3): 62- 67.
  5. Cahu C, Zambonino-Infante J (2001) Substitution of live food by formulated diets in marine fish larvae. Aquaculture 200(2): 161-180.
  6. Govoni JJ, Boehlert W, Wanatibeyi (1986) the psychology of digestion in fish larvae. Environmental Biology of Fishes 16(1): 59-77.
  7. Ukwe OIK, Edun OM, Akinrotimi OA (2018) Comparative Growth Performance and Survival Of African Catfish (Clarias gariepinus ) Fed With Artemia and Acartia Live Feeds. Journal of Aquatic Science and Marine Biology 1(3): 24-28.
  8. Jeje CY, Fernando CH (1992) Zooplankton association in the middle Niger-Sokoto basin (Nigeria West Africa). Revision Hydrobiol 77(2): 237-253.
  9. Abaho I, Bwanika G, Walekhwa P, Victor A, Arinaitwe I, et al. (2016) Fatty acid profiles and growth of African catfish (Clarias gariepinus, Burchell, 1822) larvae fed on freshwater rotifer (Brachionus calyciflorus) and Artemia as live starter feeds. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies 4(1): 189-196.
  10. Cutts CJ, Sawaboochun J, De Quero CM, Bell JG (2006) Diet induced differences in the essential fatty acids (EFA) compositions of larval atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) with reference to possible effects of dietary EFAs on larval performance. ICES Journal of Marine Science 63(2): 302- 310.
  11. Edun OM, Akinrotimi OA, Ukwe OIK (2018) Investigations on the Potential of Marine Copepods (Acartia tonsa) as Starter Feeds for African Catfish (Clarias gariepinus) Larvae. Insights in Aquaculture and Biotechnology 2(2): 1-2.
  12. Watenabe T, Kiron V (1994) Prospects in larva fish dietetics. Aquaculture 124(4): 223-251.
  13. Otterei E, Nyhammer G, Folkvorda A, Steffenson SO (1999) Temperature and size-dependent growth of larvae and early juvenile Atlantic cod (Gadus Murhua): a comparative study of Norwegian coastal cod annnd Northeast Arctic cod. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 56: 20-27.
  14. Power D (2009) The impact of dietry minerals on rainbow trout development. In: Baeverford G, Hellard S, Hough C (Eds.), control of malformation in fish aquaculture. Senc and practise (fin fish) Liege: Federation of European Aquaculture Producers, Lexembourg, pp: 79-82.
  15. Dedi J, Takeuchi T, Seikai T, Watanabe T, Hosoya K (1997) Hyper vitaminosis A during vertebral morphogenesis in larval Japanese flounder. Fisheries Science 63(3): 466- 473.
  16. Sogbesan AO, Ugwumba AAA (2008) Nutrition evaluation of Heterobranchus longifilis (Valenciennes 1840) fingerlings. Turkey Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 1: 149-157.
  17. Royan JP (1980) Importance of Artemia salina as food in shrimps culture, Abstract of symposium on coastal Aquaculture. Marine Biological Association of India, pp: 133.
  18. Verreth J, Storch V, Segner H (1987) A comparative study on the nutritional quality of decapsulated Artemia cysts, Micro-encapsulated egg diets and enrich dry feeds for Clarias gariepinus (Burchell) larvae. Aquaculture 63: 269-282.
  19. Watanabe T (1993) Importance of Docosahexaenoic Acid in Marine Larval Fish. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 24(2): 152-161.
  20. Watanabe T, Kitajima C, Fujita S (1998) Nutritional values of live organisms used in Japan for mass propagation of fish Aquaculture 34 (1): 115-143.
  21. Watanab T, OOWA F, Kitajina C, Fujita S (1987) Nutritional value of live organism used in Japan for mass propagation of fish: A review. Aquaculture 34(2): 155-143.
  22. Li P, Mai KS, Trusheuski J, Wu GY (2009) New developments in fish amino acid nutrition: towards functional and environmentally oriented aqua feeds. Amino acids 37: 43-53.
  23. Galloway TF, KjØsvik E, Kryvi H (1999) Muscle growth and development in Atlantic Cod larva ( Gadusmorhua) relaed to different somatic growth rate. Journal of Experimental Biology 202(15): 2111-2120.
  24. Finn RN, Ronnestad I, Van der Meeran T, Fhyn HJ (2002) Fuel and metabolic scaling during the early life stages of Atlantic cod Gadus morhua. Marine Ecology- Progress Series 243: 217-234.
  25. Folkword A (1991) Growth, survival and cannibalism of cod juveniles (Gadus morhua) effects of feed type, starvation and fish size. Aquaculture 97(1): 41-59.
  26. Durbin AG, Durbin EG (1981) Standing stock and estimated production rates of phytoplankton and zooplankton in Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Estuaries 4: 24-41.
  27. Girri SS, Sahoo SK PK, Ayapan S (2002) Lrval survival and growth in Wallago athr (Bloch and Schneider): Effect of light, photoperiod and feeding regime. Aquaculture 213: 159-161.
  28. Wold PA, Hoehne-Reitan K, Cahu CL, Infante JZ, Reinuzzo J, et al. (2009) Comparison of dietary phospholipids of neutral lipids, effects on gut, liver and pancreas histology in Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) larvae. Aquaculture Nutrition 15(1): 73-74.
  29. Akbary P, Hosseini SA, Iman poor M, Sudagar M, Makindom NM (2008) Comparison between live food and artificial diet on survival rate, growth and body chemical composition of Oncorhynchus mykiss Larvae. Iranian Journal of fisheries science Anans do Aquacultura Brasil 98(6).
  30. Nwachi OF, Irabor AE (2015) Response of catfish Heterobranchus bidosalis to culture zooplankton and decapsulated Artemis in the Niger Delta Nigeria. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquaculture 3(2): 104-107.
More from this journal

Cite this article

BibTeX
APA
RIS
@article{abu2023,
  title   = {Assessment of Growth Performance and Survival of Clarias
gariepinus Larvae Fed with Live Feed (Acartia tonsa) and Commercial
Feed (Artemia)},
  author  = {Abu OMG* and Nwanoniwu BC},
  journal = {Open Access Journal of Agricultural Research},
  year    = {2023},
  volume  = {8},
  number  = {4},
  doi     = {10.23880/oajar-16000326}
}
Abu OMG* and Nwanoniwu BC (2023). Assessment of Growth Performance and Survival of Clarias
gariepinus Larvae Fed with Live Feed (Acartia tonsa) and Commercial
Feed (Artemia). Open Access Journal of Agricultural Research, 8(4). https://doi.org/10.23880/oajar-16000326
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Assessment of Growth Performance and Survival of Clarias
gariepinus Larvae Fed with Live Feed (Acartia tonsa) and Commercial
Feed (Artemia)
AU  - Abu OMG* and Nwanoniwu BC
JO  - Open Access Journal of Agricultural Research
PY  - 2023
VL  - 8
IS  - 4
DO  - 10.23880/oajar-16000326
ER  -