alexa Determination of Protein, Lipid and Carbohydrate Contents of Conventional and Non-Conventional Feed Items Used in Carp Polyculture Pond | Open Access Journals
ISSN: 2150-3508
Fisheries and Aquaculture Journal
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business

Determination of Protein, Lipid and Carbohydrate Contents of Conventional and Non-Conventional Feed Items Used in Carp Polyculture Pond

Asadujjaman M1, Shahangir Biswas2, Manirujjaman M3, Matiar Rahman2, Hossain MA1 and Islam MA2*

1Department of Fisheries, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi, Bangladesh

2Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi, Bangladesh

3Department of Biochemistry, Gonoshasthaya Samajvittik Medical College and Hospital, Savar, Dhaka-1344, Bangladesh

Corresponding Author:
Mohammad Amirul Islam
Professor, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
University of Rajshahi, Rajshahi, Bangladesh
Tel: + 880-171-2141273
Fax: + 880-721-750064
E-mail: [email protected]

Received date: September 25, 2014; Accepted date: November 21, 2014; Published date: November 23, 2014

Citation: Asadujjaman M, Biswas S, Manirujjaman M, Rahman M, Hossain MA, et al. (2014) Determination of Protein, Lipid and Carbohydrate Contents of Conventional and Non-Conventional Feed Items Used in Carp Polyculture Pond. Fish Aquac J 5:109. doi:10.4172/ 2150-3508.1000109

Copyright: © 2014 Asadujjaman M, 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.

Visit for more related articles at Fisheries and Aquaculture Journal

Abstract

A study was conducted during April’2010-September’2010 with a view to compare the protein, lipid and
carbohydrate contents in conventional and non-conventional feed items and to recommend suitable strategy in
selecting feed item for the development of weed based fish farming in carp polyculture pond. The experiment was
carried out at the Protein and Enzyme Research Laboratory, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology,
Rajshahi University, Rajshahi. Six different conventional and non-conventional fish feed items like rice bran, wheat
bran, mustard oilcake, Azolla, grass and banana leaves were tested to determine the nutrient contents under 6
treatments as T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6, respectively. In this study, nutrient contents (protein, lipid and carbohydrate)
were monitored monthly. Significant variations (P<0.05) were found in the mean values of nutrient contents with
different treatments of feed items but in case of same feed item no significant difference was found in the nutrient
content at different months. Among the non-conventional feed items treatment T4 (Azolla) varied more significantly
(P<0.05) for the mean values of protein content. Findings indicated that Azolla was more nutritive and low cost
effective diets for fish farming in Bangladesh.

Keywords

Azolla, Conventional and non-conventional feed; Carp polyculture; Bangladesh

Introduction

The technique of polyculture of fish is based on the concept of utilization of different trophic and spatial niches of a pond in order to obtain maximum fish production per unit area. Different compatible species of fish of different trophic and spatial niches are raised together in the same pond to utilize all sorts of natural food available in the pond [1]. Supplementary feed plays an important role in achieving higher fish production. Unfortunately lack of low cost supplementary feed is found as one of the major problems in aquaculture in Bangladesh [2]. Commercial fish feeds are not easily available and unaffordable to poor fish farmers in Bangladesh. Consequently, there is no regular organized supplementary feeding practice and the fish production is found as low as 0.5-1.5 t/ha/year [3]. It was thus considered necessary to look for cheaper and locally available materials as substitutes.

The optimal protein requirements of carp are affected by the nutritional value of the dietary protein and level of non-protein energy in the carp diet. When sufficient energy sources such as lipids and carbohydrates are available in the diet, most of the ingested protein goes to protein synthesis. Adult Indian major carps require 30% dietary protein for proper growth and survival. Lipids or fats are required as sources of energy and essential fatty acids, and serve as carriers for fat-soluble vitamins. The gross lipid requirement of Indian major carp is 7-8% of the diet, and young fish require relatively more fat and protein than adults. Carbohydrate is the least-expensive nutrient and also a less expensive energy source for carp. Indian major carp, being herbivorous/ omnivorous feeders, easily digest appreciable quantities of carbohydrates in their diets. A dietary level up to 30% carbohydrate does not affect the growth of carp and growth retardation and reduced feed efficiency are observed, however, when carbohydrate levels exceeded 35% of diet [4]. Fish culture is induced primarily by the need for increased protein supply. One of the most essential prerequisites for the successful management of fish culture programme is a comprehensive understanding of feeding [5]. The increase in cost and demand of feed protein from conventional sources necessitates fish culturists of the developing countries to incorporate cheap and locally available ingredients in fish feeds. Recently the utilization of aquatic plants having high food value are used to supplement fish food has taken a new dimension for producing the much required animal protein at low cost [6].

Aquatic macrophytes have been known to have potential food value. A perusal of the available literature shows that some of the aquatic weeds are highly nutritive and, therefore, one alternative solution to check the massive population of these weeds might be their utilization through incorporation as components of feedstuff for fish. In fact, significant effort has been directed towards evaluating the nutritive value of different non-conventional feed resources, including terrestrial and aquatic macrophytes, to formulate nutritionally balanced and costeffective diets for fish and poultry [7-10]. Most of these nutritional studies are carried out abroad and no comprehensive studies are found in comparing the nutritional quality of both conventional and nonconventional feeds for fish farming in Bangladesh. However, before advocating the utilization of these aquatic weeds for supplementation of fish feeds, there is an urgent need to explore their nutritional quality, throughout the major culture season in ponds under carp polyculture system. Therefore, the present study aimed at evaluating the protein, lipid and carbohydrate content in conventional and non-conventional feed items used for carp polyculture system in Bangladesh.

Materials and Methods

Duration and location of the study

The study was conducted for a period of six months from April 2010 to September 2010. Feed items were collected from the fish farming study site located at Alampur village under Kushtia district of Bangladesh. Whereas nutrient analysis was done at the Protein and Enzyme Research Laboratory under the Department of Bio-Chemistry and Molecular Biology, Rajshahi University, Rajshahi, Bangladesh.

Experimental design

The current experiment was carried out under six treatments of feed items each with three replications. The treatment assignments were designated as T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and T6 for rice bran, wheat bran, mustard oilcake, grass and banana leaves, respectively. Conventional feed items (rice bran, wheat bran, mustard oilcake) were collected from local market during the experimental period. Non-conventional feed item like was collected from ponds adjacent to the research area whereas grass and banana leaf were collected from adjacent grass field and banana garden. Both conventional and non-conventional feed items were collected once a month for nutritional analysis during the experimental period.

Nutrient analysis of the collected samples

Total protein, total lipid and total carbohydrate of the collected samples were determined by the micro-kjeldahl method [11,12] method and Anthrone method [13] respectively.

Statistical analysis

All the data were subjected to ANOVA (analysis of Variance) using computer software SPSS (Statistical Package of Social Science). The mean values were also compared to see the significant difference from the DMRT (Duncan Multiple range Test) [14].

Results

Monthly variations

Protein content significantly varied from 6.05 ± 0.45% with T6 (banana leaf) at 6th month (September, 2010) to 31.20 ± 0.32% with treatment T3 (mustard oilcake) at 2nd month (May, 2010). Lipid content significantly varied from 2.95 ± 0.21% with treatment T6 (banana leaf) at 5th month (August, 2010) to 13.72 ± 0.36% with treatment T3 (mustard oilcake) at 4th month (July, 2010). Carbohydrate significantly varied from 32.85 ± 0.14% with treatment T3 (mustard oilcake) at 4th month (July, 2010) to 66.35 ± 0.32% with T2 (wheat bran) at 3rd month (June, 2010). In the same feed item no significant difference in the nutrient content was found during the study period (Tables 1-6).

Nutrients Months
April May June July August September
Protein (%) 14.60 ± 0.22a 13.92 ± 0.19a 14.65 ± 0.19a 14.50 ± 0.36a 14.22 ± 0.28a 14.50 ± 0.24a
Lipid (%) 10.42 ± 0.31a 10.50 ± 0.25a 10.64 ± 0.25a 10.20 ± 0.21a 10.24 ± 0.15a 10.45 ± 0.26a
Carbohydrate (%) 44.25 ± 0.41a 43.72 ± 0.19a 43.85 ± 0.19a 44.20 ± 0.24a 44.32 ± 0.20a 44.20 ± 0.16a

Table 1: Monthly variations in nutrient (protein, lipid and carbohydrate) contents with treatment T1 (Rice, Oryza sativa bran).

Nutrients Months
April May June July August September
Protein (%) 17.20 ± 0.05a 17.05 ± 0.12a 17.25 ± 0.12a 16.95 ± 0.24a 17.10 ± 0.34a 17.22 ± 0.18a
Lipid (%) 6.75 ± 0.41a 6.66 ± 0.69a 6.80 ± 0.69a 7.12 ± 0.46a 6.47 ± 0.32a 6.32 ± 0.38a
Carbohydrate (%) 66.20 ± 0.36a 65.75 ± 0.32a 66.35 ± 0.32a 66.32 ± 0.26a 66.12 ± 0.15a 65.99 ± 0.23a

Table 2: Monthly variations in nutrient (protein, lipid and carbohydrate) contents with treatment T2 (Wheat, Trticum aestivum bran).

Nutrients Months
April May June July August September
Protein (%) 30.65 ± 0.18a 31.20 ± 0.32a 30.50 ± 0.32a 30.25 ± 0.15a 30.15 ± 0.11a 30.45 ± 0.17a
Lipid (%) 13.34 ± 0.31a 13.24 ± 0.47a 13.25 ± 0.47a 13.72 ± 0.36a 13.22 ± 0.18a 13.20 ± 0.19a
Carbohydrate (%) 32.86 ± 0.18a 32.90 ± 0.25a 33.10 ± 0.25a 32.85 ± 0.14a 32.98 ± 0.31a 33.02 ± 0.46a

Table 3: Monthly variations in nutrient (protein, lipid and carbohydrate) contents with treatment T3 (Mustard, Brassica napus Oilcake).

Nutrients Months
April May June July August September
Protein (%) 18.65 ± 0.08a 18.45 ± 0.41a 18.35 ± 0.41a 18.45 ± 0.32a 18.75 ± 0.24a 18.80 ± 0.26a
Lipid (%) 3.25 ± 0.09a 3.15 ± 0.12a 3.12 ± 0.12a 3.35 ± 0.18a 3.14 ± 0.34a 3.10 ± 0.41a
Carbohydrate (%) 50.36 ± 0.75a 50.45 ± 0.61a 50.20 ± 0.61a 50.15 ± 0.54a 50.20 ± 0.17a 49.88 ± 0.27a

Table 4: Monthly variations in nutrient (protein, lipid and carbohydrate) contents with treatment T4 (Azolla pinnata).

Nutrients Months
April May June July August September
Protein (%) 7.28 ± 0.35a 7.32 ± 0.25a 7.45 ± 0.25a 7.15 ± 0.14a 7.25 ± 0.19a 7.12 ± 0.23a
Lipid (%) 6.35 ± 0.05a 6.28 ± 0.06a 6.45 ± 0.06a 6.23 ± 0.12a 6.21 ± 0.18a 6.32 ± 0.28a
Carbohydrate (%) 46.58 ± 0.12a 46.30 ± 0.41a 45.95 ± 0.41a 46.85 ± 0.38a 46.70 ± 0.19a 45.76 ± 0.14a

Table 5: Monthly variations in nutrient (protein, lipid and carbohydrate) contents with treatment T5 (Grass, Cynodon dactylon).

Nutrients Months
April May June July August September
Protein (%) 6.25 ± 0.11a 6.20 ± 0.21a 6.32 ± 0.21a 6.12 ± 0.31a 6.14 ± 0.36a 6.05 ± 0.45a
Lipid (%) 3.05 ± 0.04a 3.12 ± 0.11a 3.10 ± 0.11a 3.20 ± 0.17a 2.95 ± 0.21a 2.96 ± 0.41a
Carbohydrate (%) 48.85 ± 0.36a 47.98 ± 0.26a 48.10 ± 0.26a 48.30 ± 0.31a 48.90 ± 0.35a 48.85 ± 0.24a

Table 6: Monthly variations in nutrient (protein, lipid and carbohydrate) contents with treatment T6 (Leaf of banana, Musa acuminata).

Mean variations

The variations in the mean values of nutrient contents (protein, lipid and carbohydrate) with different treatments of feed items are presented in Table 7 and Figure 1. Protein content significantly varied from 6.18 ± 0.13% with treatment T6 (banana leaf) to 30.53 ± 0.40% with treatment T3 (mustard oilcake). Lipid content significantly varied from 3.06 ± 0.09% with treatment T6 (banana leaf) to 13.33 ± 0.10% with treatment T3 (mustard oilcake). Carbohydrate significantly varied from 32.95 ± 0.29% with treatment T3 (mustard oilcake) to 66.12 ± 0.47% with treatment T2 (wheat bran).

Treatments Nutrient content
Protein (%) Lipid (%) Carbohydrate (%)
T1 (Rice bran) 14.40 ± 0.32d 10.41 ± 0.31b 44.09 ± 0.67e
T2 (Wheat bran) 17.13 ± 0.07c 6.69 ± 0.30c 66.12 ± 0.47a
T3 (Oilcake) 30.53 ± 0.40a 13.33 ± 0.10a 32.95 ± 0.29f
T4 (Azollapinnata) 18.58 ± 0.09b 3.19 ± 0.10d 50.21 ± 0.54b
T5 (Grass- Cynodondactylon) 7.26 ± 0.18e 6.31 ± 0.13c 46.36 ± 0.16d
T6 (Leaf of Musaacuminata- Banana leaf) 6.18 ± 0.13f 3.06 ± 0.09d 48.50 ± 0.51c
F value 16.42 13.88 114.85
P value 0.002 0.004 0.0000008

Table 7: Variations in the mean values of protein, lipid and carbohydrate contents in different fish feed items.

fisheries-aquaculture-journal-nutrient-contents-under

Figure 1: Variations in the mean values of nutrient contents under different fish feed items.

Discussion

Monthly variations of the nutrient contents

Protein content varied from 6.05 ± 0.45% with (T6 at 6th month) to 31.20 ± 0.32% (T3 at 2nd month). Lipid content ranged from 2.95 ± 0.21% (T6 at 5th month) to 13.72 ± 0.36% (T3 at 4th month). Carbohydrate content ranged from 32.85 ± 0.14% (T3 at 4th month) to 66.35 ± 0.32% (T2 at 3rd month). Suresh and Mandal [3] worked on the determination of nutritive value of rice bran, mustard oil cake and Azolla for a period of 4 months from July to October. In rice bran they found crude protein and crude fibre as 12.6% and 21.9%, respectively. In mustard oilcake, crude protein and crude fibre was 38.6% and 6.8%, respectively and in Azolla, crude protein and crude fibred was 26.5% and 20.4%, respectively. Sithara and Kamalaveni [15] worked on the formulation of low cost fish feed using Azolla as a protein supplement during September to March and reported 20-25.5% protein in Azolla. Ebrahim, et al. [16] used Azolla as tilapia diet for a period of 90 days in summer season and reported 20% protein in Azolla. Fasakin and Balogan [17] worked on the nutritional aspects of Azolla in August, 1997 and reported 20.9% protein in Azolla. Present findings also indicated that in case of same feed item, no significant difference was found in the nutrient content at different months (Table 1 to 6). This might be due to no major change in the temperature was found to affect the growth and composition of Azolla during the study period. This statement was almost agreed with Lumpkin and Plucknett [18] who reported that change in Azolla composition was subjected to change in environment. Statement also agreed with Van-Hove et al. and Ebrahim et al. [7,19] who reported that change in Azolla composition was subjected to change in species.

Mean variation of the nutrient contents

In the present study the protein content varied from 6.18 ± 0.13% (T6, banana leaf) to 30.53 ± 0.40% (T3, mustard oilcake), lipid content varied from 3.06 ± 0.09% (T6, banana leaf) to 13.33 ± 0.10% (T3, mustard oilcake) and carbohydrate content varied from 32.95 ± 0.29% (T3, mustard oilcake) to 66 .12 ± 0.47% (T2, wheat bran). The highest protein and lipid content was found in treatment T3 (mustard oilcake) whereas the highest carbohydrate content was found in treatment T2, wheat bran (66.12 ± 0.47%) followed by T4, Azolla (50.21 ± 0.54%), T6, banana leaf (48.50 ± 0.51%), T5, grass (46.36 ± 0.16%), T1, rice bran (44.09 ± 0.67%), T3, mustard oilcake (32.95 ± 0.29%). Hepher [20] reported the protein content of ricebran, wheat bran, oil cake and Azolla as 11.88%, 14.57%, 30-33% and 19.27%, respectively. Banerjee and Matai [21] determined the nutritive status of and reported protein as 21.9% and Lipid as 3.8%. Gavina [22] reported crude protein of 20.98%, crude fat of 5.17% and crude fiber of 19.30% in Azolla. Tavares [23] observed 38.8% crude protein, 3.8% crude fat and 13.2% crude fiber in dried duck weed. They also reported that the protein content of duckweeds growing on nutrient poor and nutrient rich water varied between 15-25% and 35-45% (Dry matter basis), respectively. In case of conventional feed items the major nutrient like protein varied from 14.40 ± 0.32% (rice bran) to 30.53 ± 0.40% (mustard oilcake). Whereas in case of non-conventional feed items the protein varied from 6.18 ± 0.13% (banana leaf) to 18.58 ± 0.09% (Azolla). Being an omnivore, the fish can also feed on vegetation [24] and may be able to assimilate Azolla in the diets.

The chemical composition of Azolla species varies with ecotypes and with the ecological conditions and the phase of growth. The crude protein content is about 19-30 percent dry matter basis during the optimum conditions for growth [25,26]. The protein contents of Azolla species are comparable to or higher than that of most other aquatic macrophytes. Aquatic weeds’ are highly nutritious with protein content of 20-30%, when cultivated in nutrient rich waters [27] Importantly, they are preferred food of a wide range of herbivorous fish such as grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), silver barb (Barbonymus gonionotus, Puntius jerdoni), tilapias (Oreochromis niloticus, Tilapia rendalli, Tilapia zillii) and rohu (Labeo rohita) [28,29].

Overall findings indicated that inspite of having variations in nutrient contents, monthly supply of nutrients was almost same respective feed item under non-conventional feeds as with conventional feeds. Mean values of the nutrient contents under nonconventional feed items are found potentials for the development of low cost aquaculture.

Fish feed generally constitutes 60-70% of the operational cost in intensive and semi- intensive aquaculture system [30]. The fish feed used in aquaculture is quite expensive, irregular and short in supply in many third world countries. These feeds are sometimes adulterated, contaminated with pathogen as well as containing harmful chemicals for human health. Naturally there is a need for the development of healthy, hygienic fish feed which influences the production as well as determines the quality of cultured fish. Considering the importance of nutritionally balanced and cost-effective alternative diets for fish, almost similar expression to evaluate the nutritive value of different non-conventional feed resources, including terrestrial and aquatic macrophytes was found with Wee and Wang [10,31]. However potentials roles of aquatic and terrestrial macrophytes as supplementary feeds in fish farming were also found to be expressed with Bardach [32] and Edwards [33].

Conclusion

In case of conventional feed items, protein, lipid and carbohydrate varied from 14.40 ± 0.32% to 30.53 ± 0.40%, 6.69 ± 0.30% to 13.33 ± 0.10% and 32.95 ± 0.29% to 66.12 ± 0.47%. In case of non-conventional feed items, protein, lipid and carbohydrate varied from 6.18 ± 0.13% to 18.58 ± 0.09%, 3.06 ± 0.09% to 6.31 ± 0.13% and 46.36 ± 0.16% to 50.21 ± 0.54%. Inspite of variations weeds are moderately nutritive and low cost effective diets for fish. However, the present study did not evaluate the fish production and economics of feed and weed based systems.

Recommendation

Present findings explored the nutritive aspects of both conventional and non-conventional feed items and question raised about the response of utilizing the feed specially of aquatic weeds to fish growth and economics. Therefore, it is recommended to conduct further study on the evaluation of fish production and economics under different feed and weed based systems in polyculture ponds.

Acknowledgement

The research work was conducted under a financial support by the Ph. D. Fellowship Programme of Ministry of Science and Technology, Govt. of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh which is gratefully acknowledged.

References

Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
Post your comment

Share This Article

Relevant Topics

Article Usage

  • Total views: 12078
  • [From(publication date):
    December-2014 - Oct 21, 2017]
  • Breakdown by view type
  • HTML page views : 8211
  • PDF downloads :3867
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Material Sciences Journals

Rachle Green

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

[email protected]

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

 
© 2008-2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords