4.5 Article

Effect of ration size on growth, conversion efficiency and body composition of fingerling mrigal, Cirrhinus mrigala (Hamilton)

Journal

AQUACULTURE NUTRITION
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages 47-53

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2095.2003.00279.x

Keywords

body composition; Cirrhinus mrigala; growth; ration size

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Optimum ration size of Indian major carp, Cirrhinus mrigala fingerlings was determined by feeding purified diet (40% crude protein (CP); 3.61 kcal g(-1)) at five ration sizes (2%, 4%, 6%, 8% and 10% of body weight per day) for 6 weeks. Feeding trial was conducted in triplicate. Fishes were randomly stocked at the rate of 20 fish per trough fitted with water flow-through system. The best feed conversion ratio (FCR), specific growth rate (%) and protein efficiency ratio (PER) were evident at the ration size of 4-6% body weight. Second-degree polynomial regression analysis of the FCR, PER, and protein and energy retention data indicated the breakpoints at ration size of 5.16%, 5.24%, 5.52% and 5.42% body weight per day. Carcass composition of fish fed different ration sizes varied significantly. Maximum carcass protein and minimum moisture content were noticed at 4% and 6% ration levels. A linear increase in fat content was evident with increasing ration levels up to 6% body weight. Ash content remained insignificantly different among various ration levels except at 2%, showing the significantly highest value. Water temperature, dissolved oxygen, free carbon dioxide, pH and total alkalinity were recorded regularly during the length of the experiment. No mortality was observed during the feeding trial. Based on the above results, it is recommended that feeding in the range of 5-5.5% body weight per day corresponding to 20 g protein and 181 kcal energy to 22 g protein and 199 kcal energy per kg of the diet per day is optimum for the growth and efficient feed utilization of C. mrigala.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available