Response of Substituting Fish Meal with Maggot Meal on the Growth Performance and Nutrient Utilization of Heterobranchus bidorsalis (Geoffrey Saint – Hilaire 1809) Fingerlings

EZEAFULUKWE C.F¹* and ANYANWU, C.N¹

¹Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture Technology, Federal University of Technology Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION

Feed is the single most expensive factor in aquaculture production and where the protein component of fish diet constitutes the highest cost (Ezeafulukwe et al., 2015; Ugwumba and Ugwumba, 2003). The proportion of protein in fish diets is higher than those of other cultured or reared animals thus making feed very expensive (Cadag et al., 1981). Consequently, fish demand has been on the increase, growing at variance with its supplies but systematically with human population, industrial and growth (Njoku, 2015). One way to meet the high economic demand for fish is to culture fish species which can be cultured with prospects for fast growth under a short period of time, when given the right feed in the right proportions of nutrient (Ezeafulukwe et al., 2017).

The replacement of fish meal in fish feed either commercially or locally with maggot meal was carried out since fish meal being the major component in fish feeds are exorbitant. Studies have shown that the African catfish, Heterobranchus bidorsalis requires about 40% crude protein in their diets and best results had been achieved with crude protein values ranging from 35 to 50% for all African catfish species (Fagbenro et al., 1992).

The bulk of feeds used in fish production, especially for catfish are imported and this has led to a high production of farmed fish. The rising cost of diet ingredients especially fish meal worldwide is expected as its cost will continue to rise in world market. In order to stem this trend, researches are carried out to determine cheaper alternative with comparable nutritional qualities.

Maggot meal has been reported to be a possible alternative (Makinde, 2015). Maggot meal has good nutritional value, cheaper and less tedious to produce than other animal protein sources. It is also produced from wastes which otherwise would constitute nuisance, especially in integrated farming like and poultry. The production system thus served the dual purpose of providing a nutrient rich resource as well as a source of wastes reduction and transformation. However, the production system is yet to be commercialized (Teguia and Beynen, 2005) probably because its utility and value in aqua feeds have not been evaluated. The reported crude protein values of maggot meal range from 43 to 62% (Olaoye, 1998).

Therefore, maggot meal can be used to replace fish meal for the production of locally formulated feed for Heterobranchus bidorsalis fingerlings to consume. Objectives assessed are determination of growth performance, nutrient utilization and the inclusion level that elicits optimum growth of Heterobranchus bidorsalis fingerlings while replacing fish meal with maggot meal.

MATERIALS AND METHOD

Study area

Owerri the capital city of Imo State, Nigeria lies within latitude 06⁰ 29 06s and longitude 07⁰ 02 06s. The area experiences a longer wert season which lasts from April to November than dry season which last for the rest of the year. It has mean daily maximum temperature range of 28⁰C to 35⁰C, while daily minimum values ranges from 19⁰C to 24⁰C, with average humidity of 80%. The vegetation is dominated by semi-deciduous forest that has already been altered by agricultural and other anthropogenic activities and the dominant topsoil is moderately humus in composition.

The study was carried out in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Research Farm of the Federal University of Technology Owerri, Nigeria which provided the farm-raised specimens used for the study. It is bounded by longitudes of 65⁰ 8’’E- 7⁰ 03E and latitudes of 5⁰ 20’N – 5⁰ 28’N. The institution has an annual rainfall between 192-194cm and temperature of 32.18⁰C.

Experimental Procedure

Diets with different inclusion levels of maggot meal at 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% were formulated. A total of 180 Heterobranchus bidorsalis fingerlings purchased from a commercial hatchery with a mean weight 10.00±44.93 were used for the study. The fish were held inside 15 (fifteen) plastic containers each having 10 (ten) Heterobranchus bidorsalis fingerlings which were randomly distributed into each of the plastic container. Fish were allowed to acclimatize for a period of 7 days before the commencement of the experiment and were starved for 24 hours to empty their gastro intestinal tract.

Each diets was assigned to a group of ten (10) Heterobranchus bidorsalis fingerlings in triplicate, fish were fed twice daily in the morning hours (8am -9.30am) and in the evening hours (4pm -5.30pm) respectively.

Fish inside the 15 plastic containers were weighed simultaneously in batches at the end of every two weeks using digital weighing balance and return to their respective enclosures. The feed were adjusted every two weeks when the new mean weight of fish for the experiment were determined, unconsumed feed were siphoned out each week, stale water were  renewed in the containers after 3 days from a bore hole at the farm unit. The experimental containers were monitored daily to remove mortality while physic chemical parameters were monitored for temperature, dissolved oxygen, ammonia, P^H and hardness throughout the duration of the experiment for 56 days.

Analysis of Fish samples for nutrient composition

Samples were analyzed chemically in accordance (AOAC, 2005).

Crude protein determination

Crude protein was determined in accordance with AOAC (2005). The crude protein in the sample was determined by the routine semi micro Kjeldahl, procedure and technique. This consists of three techniques of analysis, namely, digestion, distillation and titration.

Statistical analysis

The two sets of data on nutrient composition emanating from fish were subjected to analysis in accordance with DNMRT (Gordon and Gordon, 2014).

RESULTS

Table 1-3 presents the gross composition of the experimental diet, proximate analysis of Heterobranchus bidorsalis fingerlings and proximate analysis of experimental diets as evaluated. A total of five parameters were considered including crude protein, crude fat, crude fibre, ash and moisture.

Table 1: Proximate Analysis of Maggot Meal.

Parameters                                                      Maggot Meal %

Crude Protein                                                  32.66

Crude Fat                                                        12.46

Crude Fiber                                                     7.50

Ash                                                                  11.16

Moisture                                                          34.60

Table 2: Ingredient Composition of Experimental Diets

Ingredients                              D₀                    D₁                    D₂                    D₃                    D₄

Fish Meal                                 33.94               25.47               16.97               8.47                 0.00

Maggot Meal                            0.00                 8.47                 16.97               25.47               33.94

Soya Bean Meal                      29.96               29.96               29.96               29.96               29.96   

Yellow Maize                           15.10               15.10               15.10               15.10               15.10

Wheat Bran                             5.00                 5.00                 5.00                 5.00                 5.00

Bone Meal                               10.25               10.25               10.25               10.25               10.25

Fish Premix                             1.50                 1.50                 1.50                 1.50                 1.50

Vitamin C                                0.50                 0.50                 0.50                 0.50                 0.50

Cod Liver Oil                           1.00                 1.00                 1.00                 1.00                 1.00

Palm Oil                                  1.00                 1.00                 1.00                 1.00                 1.00

Lysine                                     0.25                 0.25                 0.25                 0.25                 0.25

Methionine                              0.25                 0.25                 0.25                 0.25                 0.25

Common Salt                          0.25                 0.25                 0.25                 0.25                 0.25

Starch                                     1.00                 1.00                 1.00                 1.00                 1.00

Total                                        100.00              100.00              100.00              100.00              100.00

Table 3:  Carcass Quality Analysis of  Heterobranchus bidorsalis fingerlings Before Study.

Parameters                                                                  Values (%)

Crude Protein                                                              14.05

Crude Fat                                                                    2.15

Crude Fiber                                                                 0.34

Ash                                                                              1.20

Moisture                                                                      81.74

Table 4: Proximate Analysis of Experimental Diets

Parameters (%)            Control D₀ (g)  D₁(g)                D₂(g)                D₃(g)                D₄(g)

Crude Protein              37.23                                       36.25               35.40               33.30               33.56

Crude Fat                    13.25                                       13.98               14.83               16.45               16.65

Crude Fibre                 2.50                                         3.00                 2.70                 2.15                 2.20

Moisture                      23.14                                       26.61               25.48               27.98               27.50

Ash                              7.38                                         8.17                 9.39                 11.01               11.56

NFE                             16.50                                       11.99               12.20               9.11                 8.53

Table 5: Growth Parameters of Heterobranchus bidorsalis fingerlings fed with Five Different Diets.

Parameters                              D₀                             D₁                     D₂                     D₃                      D₄

Initial Weight (g)                      44.03±3.19^a         44.79±2.0 ^a      44.07±0.90 ^a     44.39±2.62 ^a       44.74±3.65 ^a

Final Weight (g)                       147.17±4.87 ^a      144.17±8.45^ab  127.30±10.76^b  107.93±12.97^c    105.38±15.11 ^c

Mean Weight Gain (g)              104.13±6.99 ^a      99.37±9.47 ^ab    83.23±11.11 ^b    65.21±8.14 ^c       60.65±13.02 ^c

Mean Daily

Weight Gain (g)                       1.86±0.12 ^a          1.78±1.17 ^ab      1.49±0.20 ^b       1.17±0.15 ^c         1.08±0.24 ^c

Specific Growth

Rate (%/day)                            2.20±0.17 ^a          2.09±0.16 ^ab     1.85±0.22 ^b       1.61±0.08 ^c          1.52±0.19 ^c

Feed Conversion Ratio            2.61±0.18 ^a          2.58±0.25 ^a       2.85±0.37 ^ab     3.25±0.40 ^ab         3.56±0.70 ^b

Protein Efficiency Ratio           0.96±0.06 ^a         0.97±0.10 ^a       0.89±0.12 ^a      0.77±0.11 ^a          0.72±0.16 ^a

Feed Intake                              271.42±0.01 ^a     254.86±0.01 ^a    234.52±0.01 ^a   210.01±0.01 ^a       209.90±0.01 ^a

Daily Feed Intake                     4.85±0.01 ^a          4.55±0.01 ^a       4.19±0.01 ^a      3.75±0.01 ^a          3.75±0.01 ^a

Protein Intake                          108.58±0.01 ^a      101.94±0.01 ^a    93.81±0.01 ^a    84.00±0.01 ^a        83.00±0.01 ^a

Survival Rate                           100±0.01 ^a           96.67±5.77 ^ab    90±10.00 ^b       100±0.01 ^a           100±0.01 ^a

Treatment means within same row with different superscript letters a, b ,c are significantly different (p<0.05). D = Diets.

Table 6: Physio- Chemical Parameter of Water Recorded During the 8 Weeks of Study

Parameters                  D₀                    D₁                    D₂                    D₃                    D₄

Temperature       28.67±1.16 ^a     28.33±1.53 ^a     27.67±1.16 ^a     28.67±2.31 ^a     28.67±0.58 ^a

pH                      6.40±0.17 ^a       6.40±0.10 ^a       6.47±0.06 ^a       6.33±0.29 ^a       6.43±0.12 ^a

D₀                       7.47±0.81 ^a        7.50±0.46 ^a        8.00±0.53 ^a       7.67±1.03 ^a      7.60±0.60 ^a

Ammonia            3.0±0.01 ^a         3.0±0.01 ^a          3.0±0.01 ^a         3.0±0.01 ^a        3.0±0.01 ^a        

Hardness            1323.0±4.00 ^a    126±5.00 ^a         133±7.00 ^a         130±7.00 ^a        134±4.00 ^a

Mean with different superscripts on the same row are significantly different (p<0.05).

Table 7: Proximate Analysis (Carcass Quality Analysis) of Experimental Fish (Heterobranchus bidorsalis fingerlings) After Study on Dry Matter.

Components   (%)       D₀ (0%)            D₁ (25%)          D₂ (50%)          D₃ (75%)          D₄ (100%)

Crude Protein              67.17               64.75               57.13               54.68               54.34

Crude Fat                    4.26                 4.99                 5.65                 6.27                 6.11

Moisture                      26.20               28.62               34.63               35.62               36.49

Crude Fibre                 0.54                 0.48                 0.36                 0.25                 0.31

Ash                               1.83                 1.16                 2.23                 3.18                 2.76

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

From Table 5 above, no significant difference (p>0.05) were observed in the following parameters; initial weight, feed intake, protein intake, protein efficiency ratio, daily feed intake and survival rate. Significant difference (p<0.05) existed among treatment in parameters final weight, mean weight gain, weight gain, specific growth rate and feed conversion rate respectively.

Mean weight gain and specific growth rate reduced at all trial inclusion levels of maggot meal. It has been suggested that the good growth and nutrient utilization capacity of fish fed maggot based diets stem from the high biological value i.e. nutrient composition and digestibility of the ingredient (Bayandina et al., 1980; Ebenso and Udo, 2003). Jhingram (1983) reported that maggots are easily digested by fish and this has been attributed to its relatively high crude fiber content, which according to Fagbenro and Arowosoge (1991) plays a significant role in feed digestion. In this study, the opposite was the case as the control diet; (treatment 1) had higher weight gain than the maggot treated diets. This may be attributable to the high fiber content of the maggot meal which makes its utilization inefficient. It is also observed that the higher the maggot inclusion, the lower the growth of the fish. This was confirmed by Ekoue and Hadzi (2000) and Sogbesan et al., (2005) who worked on Heterobranchus longifilis and found out that the fish do not require high inclusion level of maggot meal. Utilization of maggot meal will pave way for cheaper and nutritionally rich aqua feeds in the culture of Heterobranchus bidorsalis fingerlings at 25% inclusion level as observed in this study as shown in Table 2.

The temperature in the water ranged from 27.67 – 28.67⁰C, pH, and 6.3-6.4 and dissolved Oxygen 7.47ppm – 8.00ppm. These ranges fall within the acceptable limits in aquaculture (Boyd, 1979). The dietary protein concentrate in the feed is directly proportional to the ammonia produced, with higher protein levels producing more ammonia (Ebenso and Udo 2003).

Fashina-Bombata and Balogun (1997) and Ajani et al. (2004) showed that the nutritive value of maggot meal compared favourably with that of fish meal. They concluded that maggot meal can replace up to 100% of fish meal in the diets of Nile tilapia (O. niloticus).

CONCLUSION

It is concluded that based on the availability, biological value, growth and nutrient utilization, maggot meal at 25% inclusion level, is a viable alternative protein source to fish meal Heterobranchus bidorsalis diets. The economic efficiency so in developing countries like Nigeria where fish meal is imported at an exorbitant cost.

REFERENCES

Ajani E.K, Nwanna L.C and Musa B.O. (2004). Replacement of fishmeal with maggot meal in the diets of Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus.World Aquaculture, 35(1): 52-54.

AOAC (2005). Association of Official Analytical Chemist. Official Method of Analysis. Washinton D.C. pp 146.

Bayandina G.V., Nkiru T.O. and Inkina Z. G. (1980). Effect of prolonged use of housefly larvae in the diets of sows and their offsprings, on the fattening and meat quality of the young pigs. Nutr. Abstr. Rev., 52:355.

Boyd, C.F (1979). Water Quality Management in Warm Water Fish Ponds. Auburn University of Agriculture Experimental Station. Pp 359.

Cadag, M.T., Lopez, P.L. and Mania, R.P. (1981). Production and Evaluation of maggot meal from common housefly (Musca domestica) as animal feed. Philippine J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 7(1):40-41.

Ebenso I.E. and Udo M.T. (2003). Effect of live maggot on growth of the Nile perch, Oreochromis niloticus (Cichlidae) in south Eastern Nigeria. Global J. Agric. Sci. 2(2):72-73.

Ekoue S.K. and Hadzi Y.A. (2000). Maggot production as a protein source for young poultry in Togo- Preliminary observations. Tropicultura, 18(4):212-214.

Ezeafulukwe, C.F, Njoku, D.C, Anyanwu, C.N, Madu, H.C, Ekeledo, C.B and  Adaka, G.S (2015). Comparative studies on nutrient composition of wild and pond-reared catfish, Clarias gariepinus (Burchell, 1822). Inter J Vet Sci, 4(3): 127-130.

Ezeafulukwe, C.F, Onuoha, L.C and Ahaotu, E.O (2017). Growth performance of Clarias gariepinus (Buchell 1822) fed varying inclusion levels of cassava flour. Greener Journal of Biological Sciences, 7(5) : 045-049.

Fagbenro, O.A, Balogun, A.M and Anyanwu, C.N (1992). Optimal dietary levels of  Heterobranchus bidorsalis fed compounded diets. Nig. J. Appl. Fisheries Hydrobiol. Pp 41-45.

Fagbenro, O.A and Arowosoge, I.A (1991). Utilisation of Agricultural Wastes and By-Products in Fish Feeds Production in Nigeria. Proceedings of the 6^th  Annual Conference of Fisheries Society of Nigeria, Lagos. 121-130pp.

Fashina-Bombata, H.A. and Balogun O. (1997).The effect of partial or total replacement of fish meal with maggot meal in the diet of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fry. J. Prospects Sci.,1: 178–181.

Gordon, S. P and Gordon, F. S (2014). Contemporary Statistics: A computer Approach. Mc.Graw – Hill Publishers, U.S.A. pp 98 -112.

Jhingram, V.G (1983). Fish and Fishes of India (2^nd Ed.) . Hindustan Publishing Corporation, Delhi. 727 pp.

Makinde, O.J (2015). Maggot meal: a sustainable protein source for livestock production-A Review. Advances in Life Science and Technology. 3: 35-41

Njoku, A.M (2015). Optimal Substitution level of Maggot Meal to Fish Meal on the Growth Performance and Nutrient Utilization of Heterobranchus Bidorsalis (Geoffrey Saint-Hilaire 1809) Fingerlings. B.Tech Thesis. Federal University of Technology, Owerri, Nigeria. 57pp.

Olaoye, O.J (1998). Growth Responses of Heterobranchus bidorsalis fed graded dietary protein levels. M.Sc. Dissertation. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Management. University of Ibadan.

Sogbesan O.A., Ajuonu N.D., Ugwumba A.A.A, and Madu C.T. (2005). Cost benefits of maggot meal as supplemented feed in the diets of Clarias gariepinus x Heterobranchus longifilis hybrid fingerlings in outdoor concrete tanks. J. Sci. and Ind. Stud. 3 (2): 20-55.

Teguia A. and Beynen, A.C. (2005). Alternative feedstuffs for broilers in Cameroon. Livestock Research for Rural Development 17 (3) 2005.http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/3/tegu17034.htm.

Ugwumba A.A.A. and Ugwumba A.O. (2003). Aquaculture Options and future of fish supply in Nigeria. The Zoologist 2(2): 96-122.