Impact of Three-different Commercial Feed on the Growth and Survival of Clarias gariepinus Burchell, 1822 Fry in Aquaria Glass Tanks

Abstract

Aims: To compare the growth response and survival rates of Clarias gariepinus Burchell, 1822 fry fed artificially formulated fry feed using Artemia salina shell free as control. Study Design: Randomized blocked design. Place and Duration of Study: Wet laboratory of Nigeria Institute for Oceanography and Marine Research (NIOMR), Sapele, Nigeria in November 2014 for twenty-eight (28) days. Methodology: Five hundred and twenty (520) post yolk absorbed C. gariepinus fry were randomly selected from NIOMR hatchery and stocked at 130 fry per aquarium glass tank measuring 40cm x 30 cm x 30 cm. Four (4) experimental fry diets which translated to four Treatments were compared namely A. salina shell free (T1), Coppens (T2), Durante (T3) and Lucky Star (T4). Each experimental treatment was replicated three (3) times. All diets were administered manually four times a day between 0800 h and 1800 h based on 3% body weight. Physiochemical parameters were determined daily. Replacement of water in each glass aquarium tank was done daily after siphoning debris and counting of dead fry. Nutrient utilization parameters such specific growth rate (SGR), feed conversion efficiency (FCE), survival rate (SR), % cannibalism and performance index (PI) were calculated. Results: Initial mean weight of fry used in each treatment was 0.03±0.01 g. T1 and T4 showed final mean weights of 1.06±0.02 g and 0.87±0.01 g respectively while 0.06±0.03 g and 0.06±0.03 g were obtained in T2 and T3 respectively. % cannibalism of 3.0±0.02% was obtained in T2 and T3 while 2.0±0.03 and 2.0±0.02 were recorded for T1 and T4 respectively. Highest SGR of 12.73±0.92% was calculated for T1. This was followed by T4 (SGR=12.03±0.13%). SGR value (2.48%) was the same for T2 and T3. Highest SR of 96.0±1.76% and 88.0±1.56% was recorded in T1 and T4 respectively while a relatively lower values of 69.0±0.94% and 67.0±1.03% were obtained for T2 and T3 respectively. The best FCE value of 0.8% was obtained in T1 followed by T4 (0.9%). T2 and T3 had the least FCE value (1.2%). The monitored physiochemical parameters were not affected by the different diets during the 28 days feeding trial. On the average, Treatment T1 performed the best, T4 second while T2 and T3 performed the least. Conclusion: Our study showed that A. salina shell free performed best followed by Lucky Star feed in growth performance and survival of C. gariepinus fry. We recommend the use of A. salina shell free as the best starter feed for the rearing of C. gariepinus fry. However, where A. salina shell free is not available Lucky Star fry feed may be employed.